@tikimixologist's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:09:57 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 257



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:09:57 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 257

Verified Email

Housing prices in the parts of the country that get the top 30% population growth

Ft worth, Phoenix and San Antonio are not known for having expensive housing. Or if you look at it by metro area rather than city, neither are Dallas, Houston or The Villages (FL).


Pop growth is disproportionately in areas that allow houses to be built, for fairly mechanical reasons.

For every year they can't pay that 20k down at 5-8% interest, it's another 1k minimum added on top. A high debt(>60k) maximum repayment period is 30 years

At an 8% interest rate (charged only to grad students) and 30 years of repayments, that's $146/month. ($167 at 20 years, and $242 at 10 years.) Undergrads pay 5%, which means it's $107/month. If college doesn't increase your income by $107-146/month post-tax, you shouldn't go.


Since China bans dual citizenship, this does not apply to anyone "naturalized or even 2nd gen Chinese immigrant". I would not feel particularly cucked by a similar law targeting Indians.


I think objectively you'd have to be pretty cucked to vote R in Florida as a naturalized or even 2nd gen Chinese immigrant right now.

Can you explain this statement?

Left wing Soros prosecutors. Presumably the left wing voters who put them in office.

Here's some some dueling anecdotes, provided from a hit-and-miss piece against Elon Musk:

They [Elon Musk and his siblings] had to make calculations when they were going out with nonwhite friends about what they could safely do, he said.

One time at lunch, a white student used an anti-Black slur, and Mr. Musk chided the student, but then got bullied for doing so, Mr. Ranwashe said.

Mr. Mashudu [Elon's BFF] was killed in a car accident in 1987, and Mr. Ranwashe said he remembered Mr. [Elon] Musk being one of only a handful of white people who attended the funeral in the family’s rural village.

“It was unheard of during that time,” he said.

Original version: https://archive.is/nmjHu

Updated version which takes most of the sting out: https://archive.is/26gMt

I call it "hit-and-miss" because the original version was clearly trying to make Elon Musk bad and racist for refusing to censor twitter, but failed horribly because the incidental anecdotes reveal Musk hating everything about apartheid including it's censorship regime.

His current political activism isn't super relevant to a book he wrote in 1989. Other plot points in the book that I think got removed from the Hollywood version:

  • This town elected a black sheriff who was respected by everyone.

  • The part of jury selection that was harmful wasn't that they were all white, but that they were white women.

At least based on my recollection of Grisham books from the 90's, I doubt he'd be taking the modern liberal position of "Fry Jose Alba".


John Grisham, the author of the book, is from Arkansas and Mississippi. He's not a Hollywood liberal.

That said, the description of the movie does sound like a Hollywood liberal adapted the book.

Being too lazy to look up dates on Wikipedia is doing even more work. His first acts of ecoterrorism (arson, spiking trees) were in 1975. His first bombing was May 25, 1978. The incident with the limericks happened in Aug 1978.


Meanwhile the young ladies would be advised by their families, and the prospect of an uneugenic marriage would be regarded with the same scorn and detestation as incest. Forget falling in love, that's romantic nonsense the young are confused by,

A common fallacy I've seen is to compare one historical ideology/cultural practice with modern life, and use that comparison as a point against the historical version.

But a much more fair comparison would be the one Galton made, which compares his proposed eugenic society to real life 1860-1870 England:

"The best form of civilization in respect to the improvement of the race, would be one in which society was not costly; where incomes were chiefly derived from professional sources, and not much through inheritance; where every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class education and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained in his early youth; where marriage was held in as high honor as in ancient Jewish times;" - Galton 1869

Note the alternative Galton is comparing to is marriages based on inherited title and income. Do you believe that real world alternative in 1869 was better than Galton's proposal?

The Nazis just took it to the logical extreme,

No. The Nazis did their own thing that was not particularly related to actual eugenic proposals. Since you invoke Galton, here's the rest of the quote above:

"where the pride of race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to the nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under that name); where the weak could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly, where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalized." - Galton, 1869

Galton was generally a friend to Anglo-Jewry and viewed them favorably, as anyone who actually read him would realize: https://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1910-jewish-chronicle-eugenics.pdf

For you, sure. But it might not be for others - such as me - since among other things, I don't think I'm the same race as you.

From my first comment:

data strongly supports the position of educated internet right wing racists.

What more would you like?

Can you link to leftists who openly acknowledge the "rapefugee" problem (not necessarily using that term), the disproportionate welfare consumption and the overall net drain on the public finances? I'm curious to hear their arguments.

A notable fact I'd love to see them recon with: if in fact the harm caused by immigrant communities is the result of a small minority of criminals and welfare users, why not just deport that small minority and solve the problem? I.e. suppose 90% of Somalian immigrants are $10k net positive, but the average Somalian contribution is -$19k (this # is actual). That means the bad 10% of Somalians cost an average of $280k/each (per year!). Why keep them around?

The internet racists will say:

  • Crime by American blacks is very high

  • Crime by hispanic immigrants, particularly illegal ones, is higher than native whites but might be lower than native blacks

  • Similarly, expect high crime by hispanic natives (but less than blacks)

  • Crime by legal immigrants will be lower. Very few Salesforce Integration Engineers on an H1B visa or Abuelas brought to the US on a family reunification visa do crimes.

  • Crime by immigrant Somalians will probably also be high.

  • Crime by native whites is low

  • Crime by white immigrants, such as British or Danes, will also be low

  • Crime by immigrant Indians and Chinese will be very low

Do you disagree with these claims?

Neither of your sources has much to say about them. Your sources claim that the average of immigrant Hispanics and Chinese is lower than the average of native whites and native blacks.

It's odd that they didn't disaggregate the crimes of natives in such an obvious way, or break down immigrant crime by country of origin. Why do you think they didn't?

In a previous open thread, the topic of immigration in Europe came up. At the time Sweden was being discussed and it was unclear to what extent immigrants were contributing to crime and other social problems. Unfortunately Sweden's publicly accessible data isn't sufficient to really dig into the issue.

Then I discovered this link which actually does address the issue of immigrant crime in Europe quite directly, albeit in Denmark instead of Sweden. It also addresses issues such as welfare use. As it turns out the racist right wing seems to be completely correct on facts.

Financial Contribution

Danes and western immigrants to Denmark are, on average, positive contributors to Denmark during their working years. The same is true, though less so, of "Other non western". However it turns out that the controversial group of immigrants - MENAPT (Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey) - are net negative contributors at every age.

A breakdown by country (for countries with at least 5000 immigrants to Denmark) is provided and the result is exactly what the far right would predict: white people, Indians and Chinese make good immigrants and contribute positively to Denmark. The average American benefits Denmark to the tune of about $12k/year, the average Indian a little bit less. The average Somalian costs Denmark about $18k. Thais, Vietnamese and Filipinos are net neutral.


Western immigrants commit crime at rates more or less equivalent to Danes. Non-western immigrants commit about 3.5x more violent crime (including murder) and 7x more rape.

Crime rates can be further broken down by country of origin. After adjusting for age and gender, we find that again the racist far right are entirely correct in their views. Somalians have crime rates about 7x that of Danes. Americans, British, Indians and Chinese have crime rates about half that of Danes. I was surprised to see that Israelis and Thais have higher than average crime rates.


In countries where data is available (such as Denmark and the US), said data strongly supports the position of educated internet right wing racists. Some countries, such as Sweden, try to obfuscate the data as much as possible to the point of not describing criminals.

I argue that the most reasonable thing we can do is assume that for nearby countries more or less similar patterns apply even if we lack data drilling down at the level of individual subgroups.

(I use "educated" as an important caveat. I do not necessarily expect a random American racist to make distinctions between Indians and Pakistanis, though a random Brit might. However the typical racist motte poster certainly does.)

I never said he did. He did, however, campaign on BUILDING A WALL and DEPORTING ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Maybe you missed it.

And he did more or less everything he could to accomplish this but failed to defeat the deep state. The courts shut down basically everything he did. In contrast, remember Bush teaming up with Pelosi to pass amnesty?

I do not dispute that Trump failed in this goal. I dispute that Trump was "business as usual."

"Didn't accomplish X specific goal" != "waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left".

I don't think it counts for all that much to make the establishment right show their 'true colors' just before you join them.

The net result is the public has seen this, and Republicans have become better for it. Post-Trump DeSantis >> pre-Trump DeSantis, for example.

Does anyone love Israel more than Trump?

...record low black unemployment numbers...

Trump never campaigned on being the white nationalist/antisemitic president you seem to wish he was. A reminder of his campaign:



Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him.

3/3 good supreme court picks. Tax reform that hit one of the biggest left wing tax loopholes (SALT). Operation Warp Speed. Making the left and establishment right show their true colors.

I favor DeSantis, but lets not pretend Trump wasn't a great revolutionary president.

But I think we underweight the idea that lots of corporate admin really believes in something in the general direction of this crap, doesn’t quite grok that it’s unpopular among people who aren’t literal cave trolls, and that it isn’t about a practical purpose at all.

This can be true, but it also ignores how a modern well run corporation (and admittedly not all of them are) works. There are many different factions, each with their own motivations, and it's not a straightforward matter to simply arbitrarily impose one's preferences on others.

Imposing more "training" requirements can't be done arbitrarily. The head of customer support has a spreadsheet which tracks the time taken to onboard a new agent, there's a cell which multiplies this by the number of agents they need to hire to deal with churn, and there's another cell which multiplies by agent wages. The net result is $cost. The head of customer support gets paid more if he makes this go down. He understands the value of diversity, but also maybe HR could tone it down and push some of the training into month 7 (average tenure of agent: 6 months) a bit and save the company $M?

Similarly, the head of backend engineering has a spreadsheet tracking time his devs spend on interviews. He also has a spreadsheet showing that he's hired 5 engineers/15 candidates from scraping github for cool repos and 0 engineers/75 candidates from HR's new diversity in eng program full of black people with an amazon certification (most of whom failed at technical screening). He totally supports diversity, so vitally important to have diverse perspectives on latency and uptime, but maybe HR could target this program better?

If HR can push back with "but lawsuits can cost $M", HR wins more of these arguments.

At a well run company, everyone is forced to produce such spreadsheets and justify them to their bosses. As the anti-empirical thread in modern wokeness (measuring stuff is raaacist) hints at, quantitative measurement more or less nukes most woke arguments.

We have plenty of crazy high $$ figure lawsuits on non-medical topics also - e.g. Tesla not being aggressive enough in firing people who might have said "nigger" but they aren't really sure.


Sweden has a population of 10.5M. Eyeballing the numbers on country of origin, it appears to have about 500k of the migrants people are concerned about, i.e. about 5% of the population (from much lower numbers on a roughly 2010-2020 time scale).


More plausibly, since this is a fairly recent issue, the complaint is probably about the "Syrians". Note that Europe faced a flood of immigrants claiming to be Syrian after their civil war but it's widely believed that many are not.

Assuming they are 5x as violent as natives - along the lines of African Americans in the US - that would result in a 10% increase in crime overall. That would not show up in the graphs you chose to post.

I did notice one graph you did not choose to post which shows a 5x increase in sex crimes over the period of "Syrian" migration.


In any case "there are very few migrants so even if they do lots of crimes per capita they don't do many in total" is a poor argument for importing more.

Perhaps. But then study Guiliani era NYC, not Hong Kong.

If I were a criminologist, I would spent my career studying how HK has eliminated most forms of crime, without usually feeling like a "police state"

The problem is they already know and hate the answer to this: to make a city with Kong Kong levels of crime in the US, all you need to do is get 99.2% of the non-Asians (and 100% of the blacks) to move out.


In India there's mostly free market health care. Here's how it works:

Patient: "Hey person taking my appointment? How much does it cost?"

Person on the phone: "500 rupees."

After paying my 500 rs for the doctor visit:

Patient: "Dr, you say I need XYZ surgery. How much does it cost?"

Doctor: "I believe it is about a lac, but the finance department will tell you exactly."

Finance department: "It is 1.1 lac."

Me calling up other hospitals: "The surgery is 1.2 lac."

Doctor: "You need an MRI."

Patient: "Hey star MRI, how much for an MRI?"

Star MRI: "8000 rupees."

Other MRI place: "9000 rupees."

If you're hospitalized with a medical emergency, there's simply no time to shop around.

This is such an irrelevant fraction of medicine that it's not even worth discussing.

He got into law enforcement in NYC at the tail end of it being a dangerous city. So yes?