Tanista
11hr ago
You don’t see the people who were both dumber and less hardworking than you; they’re in a different social class entirely.
When you think about it, this is a pretty succinct explanation for a lot of the failure modes the current elite drive us into. Educational discipline, homelessness, crime....the biggest failures are from dealing with truly judgment proof. The people who wouldn't be in college, whether because of low IQ or conscientiousness or other such traits.
In places where compulsion is really the main option and people find it distasteful or immoral , things fall apart.
Tanista
12hr ago
Mean IQ during grades 1-4 tattooed to the forehead in childhood?
Why would you need any of this? All you need is tracking (disliked by many for reasons @FtttG touches on) and the kids will put together the pecking order. We figured it out anyway in my school but it was tiny, 300 people total.
Post high school is a bit of a problem I guess. But if you had IQ tests and there was no awkwardness around you can figure it out. Thing is, I'm not sure we'd want to. It matters less in more selective schools and I don't know that people who run institutions want to be publicizing which programs actually capture the least mental horsepower.
And sure, the halo effect exists, but clothes, grooming and physical features were always the stereotypical weak point of hardcore nerds
Yes, the high-IQ sperg archetype is the clearest exception, which helps OP's point.
Obviously the plan is to get a nuke and obviate the "get militarily humiliated" part.
There's plenty of things that can be done if everyone was willing. An obvious solution is to just remove birthright citizenship for non permanent residents and institute a massive guest worker program.
There's often no point discussing those things in isolation though, because the reality is that many states are explicitly hostile to immigration enforcement as a matter of fact
I see little reason to be optimistic about some wonkish solution. This is not a problem of simply not figuring out the right nudge. It's about defeating your adversaries' attempts to stop you. The problem is enemy action.
Given that they're quite clear about their positions, I'm not morally opposed to taking the simple, cheaper solution. There's tens of millions of people illegally in the US. It's insane to expect to put migrants under surveillance long term instead of grabbing them where you know they'll be.
Especially given that it's just a fact that your adversaries let in millions of people in a four year span and leave you with the mess. Where is the sense of fair play in that?
Even worse this sort of no-but-yes suggestion where people demand an unreasonable (imo) standard is a trick used by bad actors who are hostile to enforcement anyway, so they've poisoned the well for you.
A genteel immigration system that slides illegals out of the populace to their homes is possible. It is not possible under these conditions.
Tanista
6d ago
this is just some poor shmuck cutting corners and were I in their circumstances I might have taken the same leap". By all means we should try and take broad-level measures so that the opportunities for ignoring the rules close, but, as much as is possible, we shouldn't take this out on the actual human beings involved, who aren't doing anything that emotionally resonates with me as egregiously "immoral".
Recent experience says that you can't have both of these. Because this makes you subject to the very attack that has caused these sorts of ICE shenanigans and the general polarization around immigration: anyone who knows you're squeamish in this way can exploit it by refusing to enforce immigration laws on a local level and then hammer your empathy when someone from ICE finally gets that guy who's slipped past for a half-decade.
At which point, you'll be put in a position to pick a side and end up like everyone else.
No, that was the Ford response
More options
Context Copy link