domain:moultano.wordpress.com
Grant_us_eyes
1d ago
I find it more interesting that this is a statement I've seen voiced by others in the past few years, that's only come up recently. That we have the Vice President of the United States voicing this aloud indicates... well, it certainly indicates something.
Part of the issue, I feel, with modern immigration is that people have bought into the myth and propaganda, and if you question this, you're, well, a bad person. 'Give us your tired, your huddled masses, your poor' is basically good advertisement, but it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. 'Melting pot', too, was a statement by a visitor from Europe to describe New York City, and I can't help but feel trying to make all of America look like New York City makes my skin crawl.
As far as mythology goes, again, I feel that people have this mistaken assumption that people just came into the US during the heyday of 20th century immigration and merely stayed and settled. Not true. In truth, it was a two-way free-flow of people that came to the US to make their fortune and then left if they couldn't do so.
Many European migrants who moved to the United States in the early twentieth century eventually returned to their home country. The US government collected official statistics on both in- and out-migration from 1908 to 1923. In those years, the United States received 10 million immigrant arrivals and lost 3.5 million emigrants, a return migration rate of 35% (Gould 1980; Wyman 1993: 10–12; Hatton and Williamson 1998: 9). Return migration rates may have been even higher than the aggregate statistics suggest. Bandiera et al. (2013) found that in order to reconcile micro data on migrant inflows to the stock of migrants remaining in the United States during census years, the return migration rate may have been as high as 70%
More, was serious concern over said glut of immigration, to the point where moratoriums came down to stifle said flow of people because of concerns regarding the people that actually lived there.
More, as someone whom considers himself... well, I can't say 'amateur', I won't grace myself with such a title, so let's call me a 'dabbling fumbler of a historian' - someone who's looked into the past on this topic, the one thing I never see brought up in regards to early 20th century immigration is the one of distance and time. I go to local places that were settled as ethnic enclaves and I put myself back in the days of yore, both in terms of distance and logistics, and I come to a stark realization - people talk of this 'founding myth' of immigration for America as if it perfectly applies to the modern age, and, no, it doesn't - because these were groups of people who basically came to America, staked out a section of land days travel from others in the middle of nowhere, and lived their lives, alone and away from others and not causing any trouble.
We don't have that today. Travel from port city to said settlements take days back then of hard travel now take a few hours at worst. We have a free flow of people undreamt of in the past, over vast distances and in a fairly trivial fashion. What would take places in another section of your own county could be ignored with a fair amount of ease if you so wished - now we need to pay attention to what occurs in other states because the people over there could very easily come over here with all their issues and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
Talk of meritocracy and individualism applied to Immigration is a bad argument from the get go, I feel, because it's based on a host of assumptions that are not historical truth. America was never a melting pot, it was a crucible - one that people could leave and did so. And even if they stayed without being a success, they were not necessarily a failure, as they could simply live their lives without bothering anyone and not being bothered in turn.
That age of history is done and gone. We no longer have that luxury. The myths of yesteryear may speak of something that people want to be true, an ideal to aspire to, but the set of circumstances that allowed for that myth to flourish no longer exist, and it's time people acknowledge that. We can't look to the past for solutions, because the past people expect to find never existed, and the solutions that did exist people don't want to use.
TLDR: While I'm sure there are applicable arguments about Meritocracy and Individualism, I feel this is a bad one built upon bad assumptions and so I'm dismissing it entirely in favor of focusing on other aspects.
Unfortunately, I think this ship sailed decades ago. In the public imagination, "paedophile" scans as synonymous with "person who has sexually assaulted a person below the age of majority, without penetration" or "person who has committed statutory rape" or "person who has been accused of committing statutory rape" or "person who seems interested in committing statutory rape" or even in some cases "person who is significantly older than his or her romantic or sexual partner (even if said partner is of the age of majority)". (Hell, in at least one case it was seen as synonymous with "paediatrician" - this article is twenty-five years old.)
A person who is eager to draw a distinction between "paedophilia" and "ephebophilia" will be accused of pedantic hair-splitting at best and nefarious motives at worst (honestly, I don't even think the latter is unreasonable, unless the person drawing the distinction is a literal clinical psychologist or similar); likewise a person who is eager to draw a distinction between "paedophilia" (a disorder of sexual attraction which does not imply a particular pattern of behaviour) and "child molestation" (an actual behaviour).
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
Now you're ripping off Jack Lewis Todd Thromberry.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
1d ago
· Edited 4hr ago
Taking a step back, I think you are begging the question by smuggling in the premise that the principal test of someone's stances on individualism and meritocracy should be whether they are in favour of granting or withholding American citizenship on individualistic and meritocratic criteria. I think that most right-wingers, and many people more accurately described as "left-wing heretics", disagree with the idea that citizenship is or should be anything like an award, reward, occupation, office or responsibility, which are the things whose distribution based on merit are what is usually taken to define a meritocracy.
Imagine a strange world in which there is a real broad-based political movement holding that family membership should be treated like a public-sector job. Your sister, who is an adherent of this movement, says she got a strong application from India for the position of your father - the candidate is stronger and healthier than your current dad, has better educational credentials (a degree from an IIT in parenting, even!), and in fact a narrow majority of your present family members were polled and found to have much better alignment with his values. In that world, if you were deeply opposed to the idea of replacing your dad with the Indian candidate (or even just admitting him as a second dad), do you think you would have to hand in your individualist meritocrat card?
If yes, sure, you are at least consistent - get in touch so we can work on putting out some ads for any family positions our present system might let us legally fill with better-qualified individuals. There are however strong arguments for the "no" answer here: the uses and expectations of family membership are so far removed from any standard transactional notions of merit that it is nonsensical to award it based on them - you are expected to spend all your time around family members, sacrifice for them even to your own straight detriment if they need it (and expect that they would to do so for you, even if this hypothetical is one that will never come to pass in reality; your washing and clothing a paraplegic relative is not in expectation that they might actually repay it), and share illegible life experience that is only cross-applicable because you are actually genetically similar.
Many will hold that citizenship is the same! After all, you do have to spend time around your countrymen, benefit from illegible cross-applicability of life experiences (progressives would be the first to tell me that something as random as skin cream formulations might unexpectedly not work as well for people who are genetically far from those that they were optimised for!), and sometimes sacrifice for them in the purely hypothetical expectation that they would do the same for you (whether it is a small sacrifice for someone else's big benefit, like paying taxes that go into medical benefits, or a big sacrifice for everyone else's small benefit, like going to war and dying).
Of course, there is also a sort of third answer, that the family example was contrived because the notion of merit was not right. All these things - genetic similarity, giving other family members the lizard-brain reassurance that comes from looking and smelling like them, willingness to sacrifice for them - are what is asked of family members, so your slightly deadbeat dad is in fact the most meritorious candidate. Only, if you lift this answer back to citizenship, you get an answer that you may not be happy with either, which is that JD Vance was also being perfectly meritocratic there! It's just that the main qualifications for American citizens are "convince yourself and others that your ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War", "be genetically close to white Anglos" and "be someone the current residents of America would like as their neighbour".
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1d ago
What did we do? Bombed the shit out of them yes, invaded yes… but what else? Did we engage in a war of annihilation to destroy all Afghans? No. No! We gave them a shitton of money to rebuild stuff, tried mostly to avoid civilian deaths, helped them set up a new government for themselves, tried all sorts of education and policy interventions, lots of stuff! Okay later we tortured some people but look at how we treated the general population.
Would you say that this strategy was successful?
LCEnzo
1d ago
Yeah. It does not have the fidelity and sheer foundational quality of assets that a game like Cyberpunk has, nor is the Ray tracing good, nor is it well optimized (hitching, frame caps, etc).
That does not detract much from the amazing art direction, and great design. The vibes are great.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
Immigration preferences partially demonstrate that it's more than switching costs in most cases.
anon_
1d ago
If it's really 100 hostages to each Hamas, I'd have long expected actually-starving Gazans to bum rush every gunman then immediately declare a total and unconditional surrender.
Then again, that's kind of the core problem. They're hungry, but they're not actually "surrender hostilities and return the hostages"-hungry.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1d ago
The funny thing is we don’t have to play hypotheticals. 9/11 and Afghanistan is right there! Did it just not occur to you or what? Seriously.
Thousands killed in a terror attack check; popular rage against the terrorists check; death to America attitude check; hiding among the local population check; local population supports them check; even that their society kinda sucks, check. What did we do? Bombed the shit out of them yes, invaded yes… but what else? Did we engage in a war of annihilation to destroy all Afghans? No. No! We gave them a shitton of money to rebuild stuff, tried mostly to avoid civilian deaths, helped them set up a new government for themselves, tried all sorts of education and policy interventions, lots of stuff! Okay later we tortured some people but look at how we treated the general population.
What has Israel done? Bombed the shit out of them yes, invaded yes… but then destroyed not just some poppy fields but functionally everything. Have they tried to set up a new government? Worked with the people? What’s the plan? Oh yes, the most recent plan: “let’s pitch a bunch of tents somewhere and move them all into the tents”. That’s it. That’s the whole plan. To say nothing of the starvation, it just doesn’t compare.
Certainly in practice the US in a similar situation didn’t say “screw it, too hard, just kill all the Afghans”.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1d ago
Yes, you're right there. I've seen it myself.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1d ago
It's as simple as giving a briefing and saying 'give extra attention here' in a daily briefing. It's not 'lets change everything'.
They should have said 'who is Epstein bunking with? Is that the right guy? Why don't we put him in with a known element rather than Bubba-three-kills?'
anon_
1d ago
Sure. I just think there is far more incompetence at government contractors than your initial post let on.
anon_
1d ago
Because they are the folks with guns that have a near-monopoly on violence. Or at least were on 10/6.
Who does Israel themselves recognize as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip? At the moment only themselves.
No, they have been casting about for a responsible government for years.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
I’m not an expert on the prison system. But I know prison guards and they do not consider the lives of pedophiles particularly valuable. They are not murderers themselves, mind, but allowing people who have done bad things to die- whether allowed to kill themselves or murdered- does not seem like something they would object to.
They are also generally quite straightforward that they, personally, totally don’t take bribes but most of their coworkers do.
Prison guards letting him kill himself for a small bribe from his lawyer seems really plausible. So does letting someone else kill him for a small bribe from the Clintons/mossad. Them personally killing him sounds like a bigger conspiracy theory.
Sunshine
1d ago
Maybe they found it easier to kill him when he was trapped in a prison cell unable to escape, than when he was free to move around at will? Contra to the memes, I don't think Hillary Clinton actually has an organization of John Wick style super-assassins at her beck and call ready to hunt down inconvenient witnesses wherever they may hide. Killing someone and making it look like an accident or suicide isn't exactly easy.
ChickenOverlord
1d ago
Additionally, a lot of Sig's manufacturing has been outsourced to India of all places recently, and India and Indians have been the subject of a lot of enmity (deserved or not I won't get into here) in recent years. What I will say is that as a gun guy the only gun of Indian manufacture that I'm familiar with is the INSAS, and it doesn't have a good reputation at all. If you were going to offshore gun parts manufacturing to some cheap country Turkey would be a far higher pick on the list, they have a decent existing gun industry.
Lizzardspawn
1d ago
The thing is that Trump's style is Turbo folk divas. He likes women with big plastic boobs and more surgery than brains. His type is Jenna Jamison in her prime. Nothing in his public dating life even hints that he is attracted to the types of poor Florida girls that were hauled on the Lolita express.
Honestly I think that the whole thing is to protect Andrew - probably UK has threatened to make a big stink. And some nice blackmail materials on all levels of USG and titans of industry.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1d ago
No one actually considers Hamas to be the actual governing body of Gaza at the moment. Why on earth would they be responsible (under your contradictory logic)? To say nothing of the fact Gaza wasn’t self sustaining food wise even before the war, or the fact that Israel controls the borders. Common sense clearly says Israel is the de facto group responsible. Who does Israel themselves recognize as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip? At the moment only themselves. They certainly have no problem ordering around the populace (and they have, many times, see the various evacuation orders at a minimum)
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1d ago
people are usually more frugal with their own money.
Sure. The pressure you talked about initially sounded more like a hard deadline approaching, but of course money isnt free.
Point taken about the "key enablers", though I couldnt say how important they are. Yemen for example seems to have been more of a problem for the rest of the world, without US involvement it either wouldnt be a problem, or else the US would deal with it for its own reasons.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1d ago
Sounds simple but comes across as a bit ignorant of the facts.
2 is kind of wrong. The IDF controls a ton of the territory, and I think if it wanted could make that 100%. This from April says they control over 50% and its way more now.
3 also ignores the biggest and most universal problem of all armies: logistics. Hamas barely even counts as an army anymore, they are full on hiding. When was the last time they launched an offensive action? It happens but is rare. 456 in two years is not a lot. Most of them are IED deaths like the linked example. Sometimes you get ambushed. Here is a recent one. 5 soldiers killed. They were attacked by under a dozen Hamas members.
There are two million people in Gaza. Civilians! Hamas is in some sense more like a rounding error. Let that sink in. Some math here about Israel can’t make up its mind about how much Hamas is left, but not much… unless they recruit starving people which they will obviously. Thus no clear end state.
However the point I want to make more was about your claim 3. Hamas will indirectly obtain aid. But directly? By force? Seems doubtful for a group in hiding. Logistics! If the IDF were to try seriously, they could distribute food to civilians themselves. And if so Hamas could hardly take large amounts without being noticed. In fact most of the hard reporting we have indicates that gangs, here formed somewhat as a mutual survival pact, are the ones stealing some food, when it happens!
And let’s call it like it is. I’d say 20k Hamas are left on the high end like IDF sometimes thinks, and 2 million civilians, that’s literally 1 in 100. If 100 hostages are barricaded somewhere with a gunman (who isn’t even trying to kill them, just human shields), do you starve the 100 because maybe 1 will get some food? Obviously not. The wartime thing is an excuse and doesn’t fit the facts on the ground overall. It’s literally not a siege, what’s the last siege you heard of where the besieges control three quarters of the city already?
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
1d ago
I think even the worst 2020 wokeness was better for getting skilled people into positions
Indeed, irreconcilable differences of opinion here. The FAA scandal, nominating a Supreme Court justice who can't even say what a woman is, choosing a VP on similar grounds who failed hard at everything she tried, and countless other attempts to put identity over skill or even mere humanity, like highly-credentialed psychotic freaks that suggested teachers deserved to die for "health equity"? Lipsitch and Schmidt should be scourged and sent to the salt mines.
The worst of 2020 wokeness was violent psychopathy and promotion of the unskilled, unwilling, and in some cases just plain evil. While I do not approve of much that Trump has done, he has not done and I predict will not do even 1/10 the damage.
Whatever you think got skilled people into useful positions, it was due to whatever liberal remnant that hadn't completely rotted its brain out with wokeness.
the stories like this that keep coming out every few weeks and the chilling effect they create.
These individual cases are quite bad, though I suspect there's a major attention component to your noticing. I continue to think they are nothing in comparison to the vast racism propagated by wokeness against whites and Asians, and Jews on alternating weeks.
They can pull back, but they'll be fighting again when Hamas starts another war in a few months or years. There is no losing interest and giving up against an enemy that threatens your homeland.
If the Viet Cong had done 9/11 we would have turned their jungle into a parking lot.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
1d ago
That's a lot of words to not specify if you've ever spent even 30 seconds considering the rammifications of a sincere belief in a warrior afterlife paradise.
On a very related note, the NYT just walked back their expose on the dramatic starving kid. Apparently they never bothered to check any of the details, just believed what his mother said at face value. In the new reporting he "suffers from a “muscle disorder” for which he receives specialized nutrition and physical therapy." and has “cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and was born with a serious genetic disorder”.
I think Hamas are terrible and should disappear if at all possible.
And yet you believe everything they say, even though they blatantly lie all the time and have for decades. Good grief man, look at the extreme disparity between those two strawmen you constructed up there.
What I'm reading on here is awfully like all the commentary about problems in red states, with gleeful gloating about "natural disaster/economic crash serves them right for voting for Trump".
No, it's not. Military action you deliberately provoked by acting like Dark Eldar is not "bad luck" now matter how much mindkilled Manichaens want to think it is.
roystgnr
1d ago
this person is important, don't fuck this up
Have you never seen a cascading failure caused this way? You see a potentially-serious problem, so you rush to fix it before it bites someone, and whoops, your rushed fix to the problem nobody had encountered yet breaks something else that people continuously rely on. If you're well-prepared then your "fix" just gets caught in testing, but I've never heard of a security installation with two independent redundant camera systems for testing purposes.
Also, a situation where guards are bribed for a few bucks to have access to a prisoner is actually a pretty good way to carry out a hit on someone, since the guards are incentivized the cover it up rather than cop to "yeah I totally let my prisoner get murdered but in my defense I thought they were just going to have a conversation! I would have asked for a lot more than $500 if I had known it was a MURDER!" (I haven't viewed the film, so maybe this scenario is implausible for various reasons.)
I think there's a common misunderstanding of conspiracies that supposes that everyone involved in the conspiracy knows everything. Which I think is dumb. One of the big problems with petty corruption is precisely that it opens the door to things like murder and espionage, even if the corrupt officials would never intentionally get wrapped up in murder and espionage and merely thought they were turning a blind eye to smuggling or petty tax evasion.
Anyway, the very funniest possibility is that Epstein was murdered Hollywood style by a guy with a "certain set of skills" turned vigilante seeking justice under the belief that Epstein was going to be let off with a slap on the wrist again and now the "Deep State" is left holding the bag.
More options
Context Copy link