zeke5123a
8hr ago
Matt Yglesias posted on X an argument in favor of immigration (having trouble finding it now). The argument was basically “you like lasagna right? Well if we didn’t allow Italians to immigrate no lasagna. And now Italians are pretty indistinguishable from other Americans so clearly that will be the case with others such as Somalians. Think of the future lasagna equivalent you’d get with no cost since the immigrants will assimilate.”
Leave aside the HBD argument. It seems to me that one Matt and those who make this argument miss is the massively different technology that exists today that didn’t exist in yesteryear. If you left Italy in the late 1800s, you couldn’t easily get back routinely to see family (whereas now it’s maybe a days travel). You couldn’t FaceTime them at a whim. You couldn’t text message them. The populations were truly cut off.
It is likely harder to assimilate in the modern world where immigrant populations are not cut off as opposed to the old world. So pointing to historic examples of assimilation do not hold for today because the factors have changed. Now maybe you still think there will be assimilation for different reasons. But you need to make that argument. Comparing like and unlike however cannot be your argument.
I don’t think this is some kind of groundbreaking point but why would presumably smart people like Yglesias make such a sloppy argument? Maybe they aren’t smart. Maybe they don’t encounter enough arguments to the contrary. Or maybe they are propagandists. I can’t help but think repeating a catechism has value to building political unity even (perhaps especially if) it’s fake.
zeke5123a
3d ago
I guess it depends on what “most” means. AOC, Crockett, and Omar all effectively excused it.
Yes, AOC initially decried it. But AOC went on the House floor and basically spent most of her time talking about why Kirk was terrible and why the House shouldn’t vote yes on the non binding resolution.
By the way, a majority of house Dems voted not to pass the resolution.
zeke5123a
3d ago
A father of two was just murdered for his political views. A none insignificant number of leftists cheered his murder. You have members of Congress saying murder bad but “long diatribe about how awful the decedent was” effectively saying “that this murder wasn’t that bad.”
So I don’t have the faith you do.
zeke5123a
4d ago
That’s the opposite of what needs to happen after a terrorist. Don’t legitimize terrorism. Pass a law that defunds any state that passes the mask law.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Relevancy? The government did it. The problem — if you believe in democracy — is that the government did it clearly against the wishes of its elected leader.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Killing Kirk was a direct attack on free speech. The goal was to silence his voice. Celebrating the murder is anti free speech. This is where you actually get into Popper’s tolerance paradox. If we want free speech, the first rule is you don’t support murdering people for speaking and if you do then you aren’t allowed in polite society.
Large patches of the left celebrated the death (ie were anti free speech) and then are claiming to be champions of free speech. Chutzpah to say the least.
zeke5123a
7d ago
This seems to misunderstand the concept of faith. Having faith in the Protestant conception isn’t merely believing that Jesus is lord but accepting and recognizing his lordship. The devils may understand that Jesus is lord but what makes them devils is that they reject his lordship. Indeed, the story of man’s fall is about lordship. God told man do not eat from the tree of good and evil. The tree stands for the ability to determine what is in fact good and what is evil. God keeps that for himself. The devil tempts eve to instead determine for herself what is good or evil (ie a rejection of god’s lordship).
Works is a natural outcome of following the kingship of Christ.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Cost of doing business. Maybe the 50k payments in Y2 and Y3 are paid by a subsequent employer if employee leaves initial employer.
zeke5123a
8d ago
But if in exchange you make the fee be 150k paid then first employer over three years (and renewals cost 75k for every additional three years), then you would probably severely limit the people coming over to be only truly good people.
zeke5123a
8d ago
But isn’t the opposite true? That is, for years there was a huge demand for vaccine friendly studies. Are you sure you aren’t falling to an isolated demand for rigor?
zeke5123a
8d ago
I’ve thought this for a long time. But you need to at the same time create strict rules precluding them from speaking fees / going to industry for a significant time thereafter.
zeke5123a
8d ago
I think you misidentified the source of bribes. Money given to campaigns are subject to FEC rules attempting to preclude the person running from using the funds privately. It’s why the lawfare against Trump was dumb (ie mixed expenses are not campaign expenses).
In contrast, the real way to bribe someone is doing things like “speaking fees” or “board seats after they leave Congress.” Maybe a good job for the spouse or kid. And industry is careful never to fuck over loyal congresscritters because it is a trust business.
zeke5123a
8d ago
I think their biggest issue was was letting any details out. If they could’ve kept things under wraps for 3 months, validated the data, and not get the lawfare against them, then I think there could’ve been a difference.
Also, I think Vivek should’ve helmed a separate team that took aim at the regulatory issue.
zeke5123a
9d ago
Except apparently in high school he was also left wing. And he wasn’t living as a moderate left winger — dude was dating a dude trying to trans himself.
Sure and if the mom swallowed, the killer wouldn’t have killed. We can always argue over causation. But saying “the mom is responsible because she likes vaginal sex” actually misses the real proximate cause.
zeke5123a
10d ago
That’s even worse. It’s like saying “he wasn’t blue because he was bad. If bad, then MAGA. Bad therefore MAGA.”
zeke5123a
10d ago
I’m sorry but if your position is that a blue tribe person thinks operating a gun is some kind of magic, then I don’t think we can move the conversation forward
zeke5123a
10d ago
Except the left cheered on (or tried to downplay) the siege and was worried about “police violence” vis-à-vis the attackers. I would’ve shot the lot.
zeke5123a
10d ago
I don’t think that argument coheres. There is just a step difference between permitting Holocaust denialism and permitting massive multibillion dollar mayhem.
One could make the argument about protest if there was maybe a car or two turned on fire. Still despicable but within the pale to say “but all of the peaceful protest is worth not shutting down the very small rioting.”
But when you get to night after night attempted to siege a federal courthouse it’s just too far removed from a concern about protest.
zeke5123a
10d ago
I’ve m this argument being promulgated by the left. It’s nonsense. Despite the asshole being the opposite of MAGA in pretty much every conceivable way you are saying because he grew up in a red space he is basically forever red.
But nobody but nobody would make the claim if the roles were reversed (ie kid who was super maga but grew up in a left wing household). It’s also far from obvious why the things he was acting on (eg dating a trans dude) influenced him significantly less than growing up red. He clearly had turned his back on that upbringing.
I’m not saying technology necessarily makes assimilation harder. I’m saying it easily could and thus citing historic immigration assimilation is irrelevant unless you can strongly make the case that tech doesn’t matter or makes it better.
More options
Context Copy link