ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
2d ago
Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare.
I don't find that hard to square at all. Immigrants are adding to the labor pool more than they're driving job creation, therefore "taking jobs" is accurate on its face. Same with net tax payments vs. receipts (I assume).
As a current resident, the first-order effect is that it's harder to find a job and the government takes more from you while giving you less in return.
Option 2: One immigrant gets a job, brings in half a dozen family members, and receives welfare to pay for their needs.
Option 3: Fraud. There is no "except when", just "while simultaneously"
Option 4: Immigrants drive down wages of the industries they work in, to the point they qualify for welfare while doing a previously-high-paying job. No locals are willing to do the job that cheaply, which just justifies the need for immigration! Instead of one immigrant stealing one job, it's the entire immigrant workforce stealing (and degrading) an entire job sector. (This one's the most dubious IMO).
ulyssessword
3d ago
How cold is your house??
If you don't want to go full parka, then get a blanket (possibly heated) and drink tea. There's also a surprising amount of difference between sitting on a fuzzy couch and sitting on a chair.
It's not like the victim himself was prosecuted for saying a racial slur.
In what way is "you can be justifiably stabbed for saying that" not an infringement of free speech? The only thing I can think of is that it might not be covered by the Second First Amendment of the US.
EDIT: off-by-one error
ulyssessword
5d ago
One underrated aspect of books/articles/etc. is that they can give you something to argue against. Say what you will about the accuracy or the eloquence of its arguments, AI 2027 does make claims, and they are coherent enough to argue against. It may be a low bar, but it's one that so many commentators fail to reach.
ulyssessword
5d ago
What? That's obvious nonsense that couldn't stand up to any scrutiny. Either it's using the novel expansive definition of "violence" where it just means "bad actions", or else finding counterexamples is trivial.
I can non-violently scramble an egg. Good luck unscrambling it.
Libel/slander is not a violent crime, yet the harm is often irreversible and can only be punished and compensated for.
Robbery and fraud are often not violent, but recovering stolen goods practically requires the use (or at least threat) of violence.
They might be able to stem the tide without needing any enforcement, but that's a long ways from actually reversing it. I think this is obvious enough that the argument would get shut down before it got any real traction.
More options
Context Copy link