hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm sorry but this is complete nonsense. Imagine you had a list of 1000 numbers and wanted to find the top 100.
No dude, what you are doing became complete nonsense. It starts of with imagining a hypothetical that is antithetical to reality. We don't have a list of 1000 numbers, we have applications earmarked by a list of traits. Country of origin, country of residence, employment status, spousal status, education and so on. The point made by me was that accepting applications from countries with low IQ ends up wasting a whole lot more resources than applications from higher IQ countries. There is nothing nonsensical about this proposition. It is extremely simple.
Maybe this is a difference of governance, but where I am from the processing of any foreign born people, be it migrants or any other sort, is extremely costly. It takes time to go through the various bureaucracies to confirm the authenticity of the claims made. It's not picking 95 over 91.
What you are proposing is randomly splitting the list into two halves with a very slight weighting so that larger numbers go into the first half, and then picking the top 100 from the first half.
It's not random and the weighing is not "very slight".
It is blatantly obvious that this is not going to give a very optimal outcome.
From a purely mathematical perspective, picking from the higher number group is very obviously more optimal than picking from the lower number group as soon as you factor in that every pick has a cost and that sorting through the list of numbers is not as simple as your hypothetical makes it out to be.
This topic more than any other seems to produce nonsensical logic like the above that I know people here (including you) would immediately catch talking about anything else.
How mutual this feeling is.
I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude except agreeing with the progressive point that discussions about racial differences are always going to be ruined by the mother of all cognitive biases.
This is not a discussion about racial differences. So far no one has gone off the deep end into denying IQ. So what we are left with is optimizing policy based on reality. Or making banal insinuations about biases whilst pretending we are immune to it ourselves.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You do have to select from pools of people. Where do you think immigration authorities are getting their data from? People are pooled together into races and countries by birth. If authorities choose to accept data from both pools they have to sift through the 90 IQ pool and the 100 IQ pool. If they just flat out refuse every single person from the 90 IQ pool on the basis of very easily identifiable characteristics they don't have to do that and can as a result be more efficient in their search through a higher quality pool.
Education, skills and employment are not the same country by country. You care about the box 'race' because it serves as a proxy for a whole lot of information. Hell, even within countries the difference in ability despite education level, like in the US, you have big differences between races. The first few paragraphs of this article demonstrates this point
On top of that, 'race' to some extent, and ethnicity and country of origin to a greater extent, serve as great proxies for the credibility of claims made by hopeful migrant laborers. I know from experience there exists great stigma around foreign laborers in construction work, often times for good reason. I've heard similar things from my programmer friends deriding 'Indian code'.
I, from experience, would conclude that a lot of the claims made by foreign laborers are lies. Getting your foot in the door is much more important than being true to your own abilities. Especially since most imported labor is not working high skill jobs for high pay, but working low skill jobs for low pay. And they know this.
Most accurate ≠ most useful.
If I can select from two pools of people, one Asian with an average IQ of 100, one Middle-east/African, with an average IQ of 90, why should I spend time looking for candidates in the group with a lower average IQ?
Hypothetically I might be able to devise a mechanism to accurately sift through both populations that finds 100% of the qualified people from both groups. But given I know one population is just a better pool of candidates there is little utility in going for the lower IQ group so long as the higher IQ group has enough qualified candidates, which it does have. All you are doing is wasting time and effort.
In a real world scenario the situation is abundantly clear. You don't want to waste any time on a worse pool of candidates since your error margins are going to be wider with a pool where the unqualified outnumber the qualified. This error margin is not just relating to work performance but baseline function in society. These errors cost lives and I find it very hard to weigh the alleged 'economic benefit' of mass immigration with descriptions from little girls of how they were gang raped over years, pictures of little children torn to pieces after someone intentionally drove over them in a truck, or descriptions of teenagers tortured to death in their own homelands, that were much safer prior to these 'economic benefits' arriving.
As for your own argumentation, sidelining peoples instincts as racism does little to foster understanding between two differing viewpoints. I don't insinuate that you suffering from some psychological ailment because you seemingly favor immigration from Africa. I assume you have good intentions and that your tend and befriend instincts are a valuable part of your humanity that has great utility and benefit to those around you. But it's not for a lack of issues that your instincts cause others that I refrain from such insinuations. I'd appreciate if you could do the same.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
More than that, formerly shelved and sold Disney projects like "Sound of Freedom" were outdoing Indy. Considering Disney's apparent cavalier attitude towards money, seeing that kind of ideological adversary gain a win at their expense has to speak to someone. Or maybe it just further cements the idea that these stupid peasants deserved nothing good to begin with.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't think this is the case at all. Money trumps personal belief on the priority list, that doesn't mean personal belief isn't there.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Most of the utility from 538 was plausible deniability for 'free thinkers' to be on the "neutral" side. They had the numbers and the data. Nate Silver is a nerdy numbers guy. I mean, just look at him. ABC are taking a mechanism to be 'safely' "neutral" and ruining it. And Nate recognizes it.
That being said, it's all a sham. Nate Silver, just like so many of his 'followers' are always looking for plausible deniability to be on the "neutral" side because not being on the "neutral" side is way too much work. And much more importantly, you can't be anything other than "neutral" if you expect to participate in 'civilized' urban society, let alone show up on TV and be respected for your work. The guy was not slightly wrong or missing a few steps in 2016, he was off on the numbers and way off with his attitude.
It's not that "conservatives" accidentally got this one right against all odds against all polling against all reality. It's that there was a manufacture process going on with an extremely biased media complex doing everything it could to push one candidate forward whilst pulling another back. If you recognized this you would have no issue predicting, at the least, a very tight race.
If you didn't recognize it you were either stupid or willfully complicit. The 2016 election cycle was genuinely insane in its bias and one should not take people who missed the insanity part of it either too seriously or too trustingly.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's not. Do you have any evidence to back that claim? You seem to be going far outside any mainstream.
The mass delusion that is 'Integration' and 'Assimilation' keeps on giving.
These two concepts mean the same thing, functionally. Do I have enough plausible deniability to call the obvious outsider I am ingrouping an insider?
Note that this definition has nothing to do with real life. It's purely conceptual.
Outside of that these terms hold no meaning at all. Have I assimilated into a country when all I do is participate in its economy? That seems to be the barometer for most. It's hard for anyone with practical experience to get behind that definition but after we've deconstructed most of our societies down to economic blocks there's not much else to go on. So our newly arrived Syrian who just got gifted a new home renovates a newly furnished living room and kitchen on the local governments dime to separate them with a wall so he does not have to see his wife cook is just as 'assimilated' as any local because... OK, maybe not in real life. But he shows up for work and seem nice so my tend and befriend instincts tell me there are inroads to be made here. So I'll weave a fictional representation of reality in my head to support my instincts and admonish any representative of my ingroup who doesn't conform as being an evil person. I mean, who doesn't want to make friends? Such combative instincts can only lead to conflict and are obviously dangerous. The Syrian is assimilating, even if he talks arabic at home, even if he changes nothing of his behavior, even if he lives nigh entirely on the governments dime and gets treated to luxuries most people can hardly afford nowadays, like a single family home, whilst working a minimum wage job...
This is not 'assimilation'. This is a bribe. Please be my friend.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Murdering Jews was one of main goals for starting war.
That's not true. Since it underpins the rest of the comment I can understand your misapprehensions.
BTW, is you capitalization of Germans and Jews intentional?
Germany is a country, the Germans are German. They have to own it. Jews on the other hand can be a nation, a religion, a tribe, or some cultural thing depending on what argument suits them best at the time. Half the time if you talk about jews or something jewish people simply deny it exists at all. Until it's decided what they are or want to be there is no reason to capitalize.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You've done this a few times now. Said something false or incongruent, then when called out on it, just ran away to a brand new line of reasoning.
The goal of the war from the German side, if it can be called such, was not to kill all jews. But there certainly were jews in Europe and they certainly did not ally themselves with Hitler. Were they more innocent than a 3 year old girl living in Dresden just before the bombs fell?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And the Germans were waging war against the jews. By your own morals, presented here, and excuses given for allied bombings of civilian targets taken as valid, there is no issue with Germans murdering jews. As it was just a poor attempt at waging war when they should have focused the effort elsewhere.
If the humanitarianism is superficial then what problem are we facing? By the sound of things many on the far right in Europe are not against the EU per se. I don't see why, if we're not maintaining some facade of treating native first worlders and foreign third worlders the same, that the sky will fall as a consequence. European nations can continue working together despite that.
As for Djibouti, the French already have a military base there. Which they could run with an additional prison complex for as cheap as the French can run things overseas given they have the French Foreign Legion stationed there. It would be much less Guantanamo Bay and much more refugee camp you can't leave.
But that's kind of besides the point. I'm not attached to any one mechanism for doing things like that. I mentioned it more in passing than anything. The third world manages to house their criminals. I don't see the task as being impossible or even that hard for France. Nor why it would end up being prohibitively expensive.
If France had third worlders with no land to call home that commit crime, ship 'em out to prisonland.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
International agreements of the 'humanitarian' kind only matter to western nations in any meaningful sense. If they go far right, and it would only take two of the big ones, I don't think anyone will care enough or afford to uphold them.
To that end there would be no problem with France sorting the good from the bad in their society, relegating the bad to some purpose built prison hole in Djibouti.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The allies deliberately bombed civilian areas. Often times using targeted munitions like incendiary bombs on civilian infrastructure with a lot of wooden houses. Most notably in Dresden and Tokyo, though the strategy was widely employed. There was nothing incidental about it, there were no military targets. It was deliberate murder of mostly the elderly, women and children. Incinerated alive in fires that burned so hot and spread so fast that every nerve in those peoples bodies would be torturously burnt until it was physically impossible to feel more pain long before they could receive the grace of suffocating to death.
By the same token 3 million German civilians died in the post war years due to forced relocations, systematic starvation and all other manner of mistreatment. Even after that destabilized period the Soviets would use the forced starvation of German civilians as a tool to coerce the western powers to do their bidding. That's on top of every other inhumane act, like the mass rapes.
You impugned my morals previously. I'll return the favor and say I don't care one bit for moralizing from the likes of you. For what are now demonstrably valid reasons. Maybe if I only cared about jews I could understand your perspective. But even then, the Germans were working towards relocating jews out of Europe prior to the war. Which further validates my point that your premonitions and assumed knowledge of what would have happened if things went differently are simply not applicable.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Yes, it's part of the reason I sympathize with the whole of Europe with regards to WW2. And why I believe everyone would have been better off if things had gone differently.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No major participant in the war limited their killings to soldiers.
There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.
West-Poland was roughly half of the population. Considering how flexible the Germans were with their racial policies towards allies, like making the Japanese honorary Aryans, there's no reason to look at anti-slav rhetoric, most of which existing as war propaganda against the Soviets, as anything other than a placeholder for whatever would suit German necessity. Considering the idealism Hitler displayed towards Europe as a collection of nations, especially with regards to Britain, and to a further extent his respect towards Polish anti-communists like Pilsudski, there's no reason to assume any hardline ideological animus towards Poles from the Germans if Poland had aligned themselves with Germany rather than Britain, France and the US.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Fringe political movements are often marred by general incompetence. Such as not knowing all the correct procedures and not having enough money to hire lawyers and accountants to keep everything nice and clean. This doesn't read like that however and seems more like deliberate trolling.
How does Junnila come across as a person? His mannerisms and such. Judging by the picture in the link he doesn't look like the type of 'oaf' you would typically hear these comments from in a breakroom.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I was having a conversation with another person before you showed up with a bunch of nonsense, the relevance of which you can't substantiate when asked. You have been antagonistic and rude and I have no reason to put any value of your subjective moral/ethical opinions, which never held any relevance to the conversation in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.
Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway.
West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.
And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.
Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You've replied to multiple comments of mine saying the same thing. I don't care for your hysterics, but it would be much more manageable to steer the conversation somewhere productive if you could keep them to a single comment, thanks.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And I know that German claims of being superior to Slavs and Jews and being entitled to murder and enslave them were wrong and not justified. In the end even Hitler renounced claim of German superiority.
What are you even saying? How does this relate to any of what I wrote? 'I know this and that!'
Germans deliberately murdered and enslaved millions of innocent people, planned to do more on that on gigantic scale with large scale genocide.
Then why did the person I was replying to use the concept 'banality of evil'? There's no need for you in this conversation, given your differing views to the person I was replying to, especially since you are making no sense in relation to what was being discussed by us.
Feel free to call it differently, for me "were evil" is a fitting description for people doing it, but I would be happy with more descriptive version.
I am doing so and I don't care one bit for what you prefer given your comically simplistic view on history.
No, it would not go better for Poland given that Germans genuinely consider Poles as subhumans.
Please stop telling lies. The Germans considered West-Poles to be aryans. Hitler said of slavs that they were docile so long they had food and drink.
that particular stupidity solved nothing, was mistaken and resulted in several millions of innocent people being murdered
Please engage with statements in context. This is a waste of time.
You pro-slavery, pro-mass-murder and pro-Hitler (ok, that is redundant a bit) apologia is spectacularly stupid and evil.
This isn't an argument and makes no sense since I have made no pro-slavery or pro-mass-murder statements.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The point being made is that a group or a movement does not need to consist of only one category of people to still be considered primarily of one category.
To that end neoconservatives like William Kristol did not consider Bush a neoconservative on foreign policy:
“I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”
"our" referring to the internal tug of war within the White House between neoconservatives and "pragmatists".
Or in the words of Stephen J. Sniegoski:
George W. Bush was essentially a convert to the neoconservative policy. Prior to 9/11, he had never exhibited any strong understanding or interest in Middle East policy and was therefore in need of guidance, which the neocons could easily provide in a simple paradigm that Bush could find attractive.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Do Jewish intellectuals just originate all (American) political movements?
I don't think so. But even if that were the case, our incredulity toward that fact, if true, would not make it any less true.
Also, you still need to make the very important causal link from this academic movement to the actual war in Iraq.
Neoconservatives pushing for war predates the Gulf War. And as I stated in a prior comment, according to prominent neocon White House insider William Kristol, neoconservatism was the driving force behind the war:
“I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”
He had similar remarks towards Cheney
“Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.”
Both camps referring to the tug of war between neocons and 'pragmatists' within the White House at the time. A tug of war that the neocons ultimately won. It's not a claim of mine and mine alone that there is a causal link. But beyond neoconservatives taking credit for it at the peak of their influence and confidence, it is an accepted belief on both sides of the 'fringe' political spectrum:
https://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/neoconservative-responsibility-for-the-iraq-war/
Beyond that I don't know how to further argue the point. Neoconservatism had been gunning for war in the middle East for a long time. They move to positions of influence and power and at a flashpoint the US goes to war with Iraq. Arguing the more specific agitating factors surrounding that is the subject of multiple books like The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War. And though I'm not imploring you to read a book as an argument, I would present the existence of the book, along with the existence of a host of other similar material as evidence for the plausibility of the causal link.
Where I am from the process is very expensive. But regardless of that, I would just kick the question back to you. Why have a more expensive less efficient immigration system? I don't get it.
More options
Context Copy link