@pm_me_passion's banner p

pm_me_passion

אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 06:00:05 UTC

				

User ID: 464

pm_me_passion

אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 06:00:05 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 464

The Revenant had a brutal bear attack, but that’s pretty much the only one I can conjure off the top of my head.

We’re also doing quite well in the homeland, in TFR terms. Looks like a symptom of blending with general western culture. On a scale, you can see that those most influenced by the west are also the ones who don’t have kids.

Initially I was about to say it’s a symptom of being more diasporic, but come to think of it the ultra-orthodox are actually the most diasporic in terms of their thought process, but also have the most kids, so it can’t be that alone.

What does the location of the protest have to do with it? If protesters are marching in the streets, it’s not because they’re making demands of the HOA. They’re speaking to a national audience, which is exactly why we know about it at all.

Neither. It’s a result of less US restrictions on Israeli actions, which generally prioritize safeguarding Arab lives much lower than accomplishing military objectives. E.g. going into Rafah now, is something the US is preventing Israel from doing for such humanitarian reasons.

There have always been some Jews who’d rather not be part of the Jewish community. Some succeed, and we never hear of them as Jews again. Some are carried away by the Gestapo.

Every year, and as it happens it’s on this day specifically, we think of them briefly. From the parable of the four sons:

The wicked one, what does he say? "What is this service to you?!" He says “to you,” but not to him! By thus excluding himself from the community he has denied that which is fundamental. You, therefore, blunt his teeth and say to him: "It is because of this that the L‑rd did for me when I left Egypt"; `for me' - but not for him! If he had been there, he would not have been redeemed!"

Hopefully, they can pull US military aid out of Israel. Israel will have to resort to using more dumb bombs, until local industry catches up with demand. With less leverage on Israel, the Arabs in Gaza will suffer more - and hopefully some will be forced out, though that’s more of a longshot.

Since the American defense lobby likes money, all this probably won’t happen.

Of course it is. HBD proponents should be begging for more Ashkenazi Jews to immigrate.

By "the second part" I referred to "illegal immigration is good so long as it's illegal", as you inferred correctly. I'm just having a hard time imagining the modal pro-immigrant activist saying something like that, and in effect admitting that they're in support of a tiered system of citizens and non-citizens, where the former live the good life and the latter do the dirty work. It sounds like a very Motte-y argument, and I don't encounter those much in the wild.

Thank you, that's a good argument. I can empathize, American bureaucracy really is bad. I assumed it's part of a trade-off, where you get a less organized government on hand, and in return it's also less powerful. Compare to e.g. Israel where the state knows pretty much everything about you, but then it's also very convenient that you don't need to do your own taxes, or a name change after marriage propagates automatically to everywhere.

I disagree with you, but I can understand where you come from. I think that one first sentence gives a pretty good answer for me, so thank you. It does imply open-borders from the worst-off countries, though.

Thanks, I'm reading up on this now. It sounds a little bonkers from the description here, which usually I interpret as myself not getting the full context. I'll try to dig a bit deeper.

Absolutely. I used Venezuela as an example too, when saying who might want to illegally immigrate to the US even if they couldn't work legally. For more context, my family and I are currently staying in the US with a legal working visa, and we had to go through some hoops to get it (we'll be leaving soon, unfortunately). I can put myself in the shoes of the illegal immigrant very easily.

If I understand correctly, then, the pro-illegal immigration Americans are de-facto pro-open borders, or at least pro-open borders from the third world. I can understand the political hardship of changing federal laws to increase legal immigration, so I assume that un-enforcement is a way to achieve that end while side-stepping national politics. Does the pro-illegal immigration camp also campaign for increased legal immigration from the third world?

Oh, good answer, on both counts. Is the second part something that people actually say out loud, though? Or is it something that they'll think, but then say something else?

Thank you! That's a fair steelman. It does look at sanctuary laws in isolation, though. Am I incorrect in thinking that the same camp that is pro-sanctuary is also against ICE enforcement? We'd call that "holding the rope on both ends", which I can't find a good parallel idiom for in English, but hopefully you get the meaning.

(To be clear, I'm not arguing the point, I really do want to get the strongest possible version of it so I'm trying to find the holes)

Ah, I see. I'm not an expert on nukes, but I'd think you'd need more than that to get them down to 0. Also, if you want to color only within the lines - i.e. not hit Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan etc. - you'd need to add some other, more accurate ordinance, just to get those corners filled out.

That's why Israel would capitulate. If the entire world is pressuring Israel to accept a two-state solutions, with EU peacekeepers to put down any troublemakers on either side to make it happen, there's no reason to humor the notion of Israel nuking Europe.

I have to say, the very idea of lethargic, cowardly Europe trying to occupy Israel is about as unserious as it gets. Europeans don't even have the political will to defend their own back yard in Ukraine, let alone shed blood in the middle east. Besides, how do you suppose "EU peacekeepers [...] put down any troublemakers" such as Hamas, any better than Israel can? As in, technically, how? Your track record in fighting guerillas isn't very good.

Probably. I'd expect this to be more well-known, though, especially these days and in pro-Israeli circles. I think there's also a torrent of info and mis-info coming out of true-believers in the Palestinian cause - there are quite a lot of Muslims in the world where that can originate from. Still, I'd imagined the median person to be more apathetic than this.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said. the Iranian proxy groups do not target China, since they're on good terms with each other. The US, however, has chosen to side with the Saudi-Sunni side (in general). At the same time, you're also feeding your friends' enemies - literally sending aid to the Houthis and Gazans at the same time your allies are fighting them. You expect to not be hated when acting in such a two-faced manner? You're playing both sides, prolonging every conflict for as long as possible, and now everyone hates you. Just FYI, the Israeli public isn't very happy with you either. What else do you expect?

Thank you for providing an answer. These are the kinds of arguments that I found while googling, and I think they’re pretty bad. They just ignore outright what the laws are actually doing - i.e. allowing anyone who manages to cross the border to stay illegally - in favour of talking about something else or a very small subset of what the policy actually is. For example, the first thing my wife asked was “so criminals and terrorists can just come in?”, and nowhere did I see any mention of it in the pro camp’s arguments. I was hoping for a robust steelman, if one exists.

Alright, I can see where they come from then. Would you say that in practice, the people who support sanctuary laws etc. are also in support of open borders? I think that’s what we’re having issues with, squaring how someone can support un-enforcement of immigration laws but still not being in favour of letting anyone in. It seems like the practice is opposed to the theory.

Frankly the worlds obsession with the Israeli Palestinian conflict is absurd and more trouble than its worth.

I’ve been saying the same thing for a while. I don’t get the west’s obsession. People are marching in the streets of London flying PLO flags… why? It’s just another ethnic conflict in the middle-east, and a low stakes one at that. It’s baffling.

I must be missing something about that second one. What’s that supposed to mean?

I was discussing US politics with my wife, as one does, and immigration laws came up. I briefly told her about sanctuary cities, and in response she asked why anyone would support that. I had no answer.

I googled a bit and got some very bad answers, so I’m turning to the motte.

Can the motte provide some pro-sanctuary arguments, and some pro-illegal immigration arguments in general? Consider that you’re giving these answers to a none-American from an ethno-state that enforces its immigration laws, and generally frowns on immigration to it from different ethnicities.

What do you mean "why"? If you want to stop the Houthis from blocking trade routes, surely their disappearance would achieve that goal. Dead people cannot initiate hostilities.

You're welcome to try to "befriend the arab states", though you'll have to choose which ones. Currently you're on the Saudi-Sunni axis, which is one of the reasons the Iranian don't like you. Rest assured that your support for Israel is a minor issue at best.

I'm not aware of any Arab countries with nukes. Are you thinking of Pakistan?