domain:nunosempere.com
OliveTapenade
18m ago
I can see nothing in the constitution that says that states or communities are not allowed to welcome migrants. I think you're reading a kind of racial bias into it? I know you didn't mention specifically, but I think it is significant that this conversation is about Korean migrants, and not white or black migrants from elsewhere in the US.
It seems to me that you are assuming, on a highly speculative basis, that Georgians are strongly opposed to living alongside Koreans. I see no evidence of that, nor that the democratic will of Georgians is to get rid of this Korean community, Koreans in general, or Asians in even more general.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
23m ago
I see so many migrants who make the simultaneous arguments of 'the locals aren't skilled enough to do high skilled work' as well as 'the locals find low skilled work beneath them', with the general theme being 'the locals are lazy and incompetent, so give all the jobs to migrants'.
OliveTapenade
26m ago
Isn't the consequence of every individual seat's election a mandate for that elected congressperson? No individual congressperson is bound by a presidential mandate. They are responsible to the constituents below them, not to a president above them.
I repeat my position that Republicans in congress have zero obligation to be acquiescent to the will of a Democratic president, and Demicrats in congress have zero obligation to be acquiescent to the will of a Republican president. Mandates, if they exist at all, do not work like that.
faceh
29m ago
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it. And maybe it's worth it if we put hard limits on economic growth and only allow Y production no matter how much market demand exists. Maybe it's worth it in the same way that some leftists felt promoting some minorities above their skill level was worth it.
There's a strong argument that this has outsized effects in said 'key' industries when placing a lower-skill worker into the process results in higher-than-acceptable failure rates for complex products and complicated processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring_theory_of_economic_development
And this gets worse if those 'key' industries feed into other industries. You know, like if power production gets spotty b/c your plants have too much downtime, which brings down every other industry. Or factories can't put out enough intermediate goods that are needed in other projects, and this bottlenecks productions in other areas.
Explained in excruciating detail here:
https://mgautreau.substack.com/p/nice-things-and-why-we-cant-have
So there's certainly an argument that you should pull in as many high-skill immigrants as possible.
But now there is the question of where to stick the low-performers were they won't do as much harm.
And perhaps the big one, what happens to the country you just brain-drained high skill immigrants from if they don't have enough such people left to maintain domestic industries...
But this also assumes there's no major risk of... deliberate interference/sabotage. Now I'm thinking of the especially high-sensitivity 'industries.' Who is maintaining nuclear arsenal? Building fighter jets and tanks? Keeping your government's communications and networked systems secure?
You NEED, as in NOT OPTIONAL, loyal, high skilled, 99% reliable workers in these industries. So does every other country. And they are also motivated to compromise.
So yeah, bringing in high-skill immigrants is almost conclusively a net good for all involved to the extent you can support more and more complex, high value, high-wage industries across the board and thus vastly improve the productivity of your entire economy.
This is, as I gather, the beautiful good intentions of the H1B program.
But this is a very fragile system at these important points of failure, if you let in lesser skilled immigrants (who present as high-skilled), this can break important stuff. If you let in high-skilled immigrants who ultimately want to benefit their home country over yours, they can steal or break important stuff intentionally.
And this will break many other things downstream of the initial failure.
And the more such critical industries your country depends on (i.e. the more developed/complex the economy) the more places where such breaks can occur.
Filtering. Filtering. Filtering. How good are you at it, and do you have the political stomach to do it as aggressively as necessary.
anti_dan
38m ago
In a world where 16 year olds from time to time boost cars then leave them on the side of the road 30 feet from where they stole them, and then grow into productive citizens, this is how the criminal justice system should work.
In the world of the county I currently reside, this is instead the progression: 12-16 year olds regularly boost cars for their gangs. The gangs turn them into parts and they disappear into the black market and no owner ever sees them again. Then somewhere in the 16-21 year old age range they graduate to armed robbery and hijacking. Sometimes someone is shot, sometimes luckily not. If no one dies and they are 16 or 17, they get out in 3 years! If 18-21, 20 years. If they are the juvie, well they prolly do it again, or something else dumb like dealing drugs while armed. Then they get hit with a good 7-10. Now both sets of these juvies are lucky, they did no murders in their 20s, so they are likely about to age out of the violent crime demo. They are resigned to a life (mostly) of drug dealing, retail (or amazon delivery) thieving, and other antisocial, but usually nonviolent activities at this point. In any case the system that applied above makes no sense for the scenario here, and I gave a rosy scenario. No one has actually been shot or killed, merely placed in the extreme danger of being shot or killed.
The problem isn't that rehabilitation doesn't work as an absolute measure. Its that the places it would work are often the places where it is so rarely needed, no one even thinks about implementing it.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
38m ago
You’re underestimating how easy it was to do apologetics before the Age of Enlightenment. There was a time when you could say, “consider the phoenix of Arabia, the bird which resurrects itself every 500 years, as proof of resurrection”, and people were like “oh yeah, I mean that’s a good argument, everyone knows about the phoenix”. This is an argument that Clement makes, one of our first apologists, repeated by Origen and others. (It also happens to be an interesting topic of debate regarding the right meaning of monogenes). Augustine makes a similar argument in regards to the Pelican, which everyone knows feeds its young from its own flesh. When Paul argued about the resurrection of the dead, he pointed out that the stars are spiritual bodies with their own glory, and as you know these were once especially righteous mortals —
The stars overhead were thought to be divine or angelic intelligences (as we see reflected in James 1:17 and 2 Peter 2:10-11). And it was a conviction common to a good many pagans and Jews alike that the ultimate destiny of great or especially righteous souls was to be elevated into the heavens to shine as stars (as we see in Daniel 12:3 and Wisdom 3:7, and as may be hinted at in 1 Corinthians 15:30-41)
The first apologist we have is Justin Martyr, a former philosopher who studied Platonism, and while he begins his Dialogue of Trypho entertaining the notion of philosophy, he quickly discards it as being worthless entirely, with only the Prophets having knowledge of the divine.
There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men [...] For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them […] for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.
And this is the whole beginning of apology: a disinterest in philosophy in favor of prophecy. The early Christians were blessed that they could point to 500 years of writings predicting Christ; this would have constituted excellent evidence for men who believed in phoenixes and spiritual stars. And the secrecy of the faith made it even more compelling. But who would be convinced by this today? We are 2000 years removed. We need something else.
Christ arguably tends to rain on utopian parades in favor of, well, the supernatural gift of everlasting life
There are many changes that a Christian is supposed to effect in the world, however, from reducing sin to increasing love and brotherhood to sharing in wealth. This is the Kingdom on Earth, the Kingdom within us, the God who is love and so forth. Why should these need to be done with eternal life in mind? 20th century social movements are evidence against that. And I wonder how important eternal life really is for establishing moral behavior. Where are the people selling all they have to be perfect, for an even greater reward in the life to come? They are so rare as to be essentially nonexistent. I don’t mean the ones who get free room and board at a beautiful monastery, that’s different. If a religion like Catholicism with all the bells and smells cannot actually induce the rich to depart from their wealth when this would confer perfection, extra rewards, and possibly even sainthood, then eternal life is probably useless for motivating righteous conduct. It may be very useful as palliative care for those whose lives are utter torment, but then so can thankful and gratitude and some other practices.
"who will be handling the household finances?"
Trad answer is, of course, the wife. For good reason - traditional societies were heavily alcoholic societies, where if average man got his hands on cash, he would instantly spend it all on booze.
Eetan
1hr ago
I'd agree that for better or worse the 'capital T' Traditional world is dying. I think an important factor that's often overlooked is that the ubiquitous preindustrial peasant sustenance economies that dominated almost the entire globe 200 years ago are gone entirely or radically diminished today in Europe, America, East Asia and increasingly the developing world as well.
This. How would modern "trad" society look like? How would modern industrial infrastructure, both hard and soft, run on traditional feudal principles? I am not aware of any trad engaging with this question at all.
KingOfTheBailey
1hr ago
I reject pretty much every aspect of this post. I think you present your premises as a false consensus and a false binary choice as your conclusion. The actual policy discussion on the ground is not "we're only gonna do high-skill immigration. How much should we do?" but the beginnings of a "not any more, you're not" response to "we're just not going to bother enforcing immigration law against illegal migrants". Which means there's a lot of low-to-medium-skilled work being done by immigrants. There's no point in my mind to discussing the numbers of truly high-skilled immigrants a country should import when unskilled labor, fast food, taxi driving, food delivery, etc. are all done by immigrants with varying legal status, and chain migration rules allow the high-skilled migrant to bring a family who brings their family (who ...).
anti_dan
1hr ago
It also is one with, from my perspective, mostly imagined tradeoffs. The problem with incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts or otherwise exists in the low wage market (and fir the first 3, very prominently in the H1b market), but the tradeoff for employers looking abroad vs. at home at the high end is mostly about age discrimination and wage expectations. Take, for example, this recent viral tweet: https://x.com/JoshuaSteinman/status/1964097707636625671
Essentially, this guy is complaining about the fact that he needs a couple of retired/semi-retired 50-65 year old guys to come out of retirement to found a transformers company and is complaining that their salary demand is... slightly under $500k? Of course, if you are at all familiar with the mid-high end engineering work environment this is not at all new to you. The thought of hiring a 55 year old is offensive to most people in hiring. The thought that they are just as important as a founder with seed money, probably moreso. So even though this startup cost is actually a drop in the bucket, it seems unteneble to this fellow (who is representative).
So what will he do? Likely he will give up on the idea, but if he doesn't he's likely to try the H1b route. And if you are familiar with that you will know there will be many applicants with resumes that say they have experience designing and fabricating large transformers under various industry standards. They will not. If the company ever launches it will flounder and never get out a product until this guy caves and pays an old guy, OR one of his like 25 year old incidental white guy hires from Colorado School of Mines befriends one of those old white guys and fixes everything.
Eetan
1hr ago
If conservatives can be persuaded to join the army to help a Godless empire plant poppies to flood their rivals with heroin, then they can be persuaded to sacrifice some pleasure for the only Empire that has ever mattered, the Kingdom of God.
There is difference between enlistment for good money and benefits on the other side of the world, and fighting civil war against your neighbors in the ruins of your town (without air support, without evacuation and medical care, without regular delivery of ice cream to the front line).
Eetan
1hr ago
My point here isn't that I think RETVRN TO THE 1790s is going to happen at the voter box, exactly.
It is not going to happen at gun point either.
Look at most serious attempt (so far) of RETVRN of (partly) modernized society back to trad life.
Yes, I mean Iran.
It is total failure on all terms, and especially trad religious ones. And it was not due to ayatollah's softness, due to excessive devotion to "human rights" or "due process". I am not aware of any "trad" engaging with this example, honestly trying to find out "what went wrong" or "who betrayed the revolution".
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
That's kind of a different matter. Yes, they're bumbling idiots, but they're my bumbling idiots!
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
She was going through pre-marriage counseling with her local Catholic priest. She was bemoaing the fact that, on a questionnaire she had her fiancee had to fill out, it asked "who will be handling the household finances?" "Tollbooth!" She steamed, "What am I supposed to do? Just stand barefoot in the kitchen all day with a baby on my hip?"
Am I supposed to read something prescriptive in the question? It seems just common sense to ensure a couple has a plan in place on how to handle finances before getting married. Catholics have a systematic marriage prep for this reason - to make sure that the common causes of divorce are at least discussed prior to making a life-long commitment.
Is she assuming the priest was expecting a response of "husband works, I drag toddlers to supermarket?" Because normally they don't care, as long as you have an answer and you've talked about it with your betrothed. Also (at least for me) we didn't have to share the questionnaire with anyone, we just filled it out and talked with each other.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
1hr ago
No, I think the only way to get close to parity given the biological realities is just allowing men the option to opt out of the legal responsibilities.
I'm fine with that in the abstract, although in terms of concrete details it seems like a system open to abuse. But I'm sorry you're in that situation, and I imagine you don't want to debate something so personal.
From the conservative perspective, that's basically what John McCain and Mitt Romney actually did, and that's why so many people picked Trump - because for all his flaws he's a fighter.
The bad thing about McCain and Romney is that they lost, and the good thing about Trump is that he won.
Not to mention it's easy to lionize men who never won the presidency and had to actually get their hands dirty.
OTOH, Mangione (who I think is an actual drug-addled nutjob, rather than any kind of ideologue) is openly lionized on the left.
You think Mangione doesn't have fans on the right? Are you telling me MAGA is a populist movement that loves CEOs of health insurance companies?
If a future Democrat administration invites in a hundred million foreigners on welfare, and all but openly tolerates them raping my children while viciously repressing the native population, then yeah.
For all the conservative memes mocking childless liberal women for their breathless, supposed erotic fixation on the Handmaid's Tale you have a shocking lack of awareness for similar fantasies on the right. There's this odd fetishism with home invaders and having to defend your family from the rapist hordes at the gates.
just keyboard rage until exhaustion
Isn't that the point of this place?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1hr ago
gobbledegook languages
Your posting is just the usual garden-variety xenophobia and racism, which is not in itself against the rules, but your sneering is getting over the top and bordering on pure culture warring, and given your history, I'm warning you now to dial it down because I can see you getting amped up and a ban is next.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
1hr ago
Good points I've actually defended the traditional church hierarchy many times by appealing to this kind of argument.
I suppose I just get fed up sometimes with how uhh well frankly foolish and disconnected much of the church hierarchy seems to me. Not claiming they are, just that I have difficulty understanding their motives. This goes for Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican, btw.
You do make good points though!
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
I'd like to push back on the idea that crossing ecclesiastical authority risked death. I feel like that's a model of the Middle Ages that is more conceived on 18th century propaganda instead of the actual historical record. Even when the Papal States had an executioner, he was part of the civil courts, not the ecclesiastical courts. He executed thieves and assassins, not heretics. Ecclesiastical courts were not allowed to kill anyone at all, and there is good reason for that. That's not to say they were infallible bastions of perfect goodness and mercy, but they aren't the opposite either. They were courts.
People accused by civil authorities of crimes begged to be tried by the Inquisition because the Inquisition had a higher standard of evidence. And so on and so forth.
What you might object to most strongly crosses over into the other aspect of your comment - forcing people to believe via authority. So I will touch on that first before a deeper discussion on persecuting heretics.
In the Middle Ages, people were not forced to believe via authority. Forced baptisms are illicit, and pagans converted in droves without threat of force. Rather, people believed because it was the air they breathed. Not being a Christian would be like being a Flat Earther today.
Taking the analogy further, lots of people today believe the Earth is round because that is how it is depicted in art. Maybe they were lucky enough to be exposed to a globe as a child. They heard stories and have seen relics of people going to space and seeing the round Earth. They are not forced to believe the Earth is round under threat of torture. It'd be frankly bizarre for them to think the Earth was Flat.
Any American today had the opportunity to take high-school level Trigonometry and be able to prove that the Earth is round based on measuring shadows and traveling 100 miles, a trivial feat compared to how difficult it would be to prove to oneself in the past. But why would they? Who is suspicious enough to do so?
And moreover, basic facts about the world, like the shape of the Earth, shouldn't be accessible only to those with above-average intelligence and a car. It would be bizarre to make a society that is agnostic about the shape of the Earth because we wouldn't want to unduly influence belief.
The Medieval mind was as convinced about the truth of Christianity as we are about the roundness of the Earth. Those with the intelligence to prove it made sure that this important knowledge was accessible to all. And I believe they did prove the existence of God and that there is more proof today than there was in the past. And that anyone smart enough who goes through 4-6 years of specialized education and spiritual formation (that is very hard to get these days) will agree, if we could just get them to take the opportunity cost to get there.
Here is where the analogy is inadequate - the problem of heretics. Because it doesn't really matter to a functioning society if there is a group of people who think the Earth is flat. We pity them, we ignore them, even if one of our own children became a flat Earther we would still harbor a vague hope that they could still life a good life, even if you stop trusting their judgement on other things.
But in the case of Christianity, there is a huge emphasis on Orthodoxy (right belief) and Orthopraxy (right practice.) And if you tip the balance so that the ignorant masses are now divided in belief, they are going to believe all sorts of things, very few of which are results of a systematic fact-finding methodology. And if you have midwits choosing beliefs randomly, you have disagreement and dissension and civil wars and that is why the CIVIL authorities executed heretics and waged crusades against them.
Because the Cathars had beliefs that were society-ending and spread them at an alarming rate to people who didn't know better. Because if you're a Protestant Lord and some of your subjects are Catholics then they have an obligation to defy your authority at times, and you can't have that.
The problem the Medieval were trying to solve wasn't that everyone is by default agnostic and they needed to be forced at knifepoint to be Catholic. The problem they were trying to solve is that people all too easily believe whatever their slightly-smarter neighbor tells them is a good idea and this can upend society. Like "marriage and sex are evil" and "men and women are interchangable."
But wait, didn't we enlightened Americans figure out a way for multiple people with a plurality of different ideologies and religions to live together in peace and harmony without society collapsing?
...I certainly hope so. But I think only time can tell.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1hr ago
My theory is he was arrested because he was there and "suspicion of assault" was a post-facto invention to cover a bad arrest.
And no, regardless of this I am still right about Abrego Garcia; he was certainly initially deported to the wrong place.
ChickenOverlord
2hr ago
The faith which I’m currently earnestly investigating (Mormonism)
Not much to add here, just wanted to say if you have any questions about whatever I'm a Mormon.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
2hr ago
Interesting question of where to set the clock and what counts as grace, given how atrocious the original decision was.
We should probably rewind to prehistory, when women risked infection to get back alley abortions with filthy stone age awls. we ought to retvrn to the old ways, where women would give birth and then drop the baby in the ocean or jungle.
where's the liberal defection in response to Desantis and Abbott sending busloads of illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard or other liberal strongholds?
LOL. Moving on-
Is the joke that the 10 million refugees is the defection, or the angry letters in the newspaper and on tumblr?
70 years ago, yes: post-war optimism, being the main country that mattered and wasn't wrecked, fairly strong sense of national unity. 50 years ago it was already declining.
Just curious, what are you basing this on? Because I bet if I dug into the history books it wasn't as wonderful as you might imagine. The McCarthy trials and Korean war can't have been universally popular, the scars of Japanese internment, continuing racial segregation, miscegenation laws...even then, setting your norm as the high-water mark the decade after winning a world war and emerging as one of two superpowers does not seem like a solid foundation for a nation.
Besides, we won another global conflict within our lifetimes! The Berlin wall fell, the USSR dissolved and for my childhood the USA was the sole superpower. The budget was balanced and our biggest problem was that the president was getting BJs in the oval office. You really don't think the 90s were another high-water mark?
Had I the time, my thesis would be that the institutions of the 20th century were just as shitty as today. As you say, information control is simply much harder now.
Define "flawed." All models are imperfect; some are useful.
Uniting behind a flawed leader is usually better than no leader at all. Or at least that's what I tell my employees.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
2hr ago
A Christ shorn of his supernatural aspects is just a charismatic ascetic who bamboozled some poor and sick people by saying spooky unverifiable nonsense. Judged purely by his personality characteristics and by the very limited record of his non-supernatural deeds, he does not come off as some great hero, nor even a stellar lifestyle role model. (He died unmarried, childless, and with seemingly no wealth, possessions, or notable professional achievements.)
This is very core to the Christian mythos. Let me quote from a recent article I read on Christ and Nothing:
In any event, the purpose behind these indefensibly broad pronouncements—however elliptically pursued—is to aid in recalling how shatteringly subversive Christianity was of so many of the certitudes of the world it entered, and how profoundly its exclusive fidelity to the God of Christ transformed that world. This is, of course, no more than we should expect, if we take the New Testament’s Paschal triumphalism to heart: “Now is the judgment of this world, now will the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31); “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33); he is “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion” and all things are put “under his feet” (Ephesians 1:21-2); “having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15); “he led captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8); and so on. Still, we can largely absorb Scripture’s talk of the defeat of the devil, the angels of the nations, and the powers of the air, and yet fail to recognize how radically the Gospels reinterpreted (or, as Nietzsche would say, “transvalued”) everything in the light of Easter.
The example of this I find most striking is the account John’s Gospel gives of the dialogue between Christ and Pilate (John 18:28-19:12). Nietzsche, the quixotic champion of the old standards, thought jesting Pilate’s “What is truth?” to be the only moment of actual nobility in the New Testament, the wry taunt of an acerbic ironist unimpressed by the pathetic fantasies of a deranged peasant. But one need not share Nietzsche’s sympathies to take his point; one can certainly see what is at stake when Christ, scourged and mocked, is brought before Pilate a second time: the latter’s “Whence art thou?” has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: “I have power to crucify thee” (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).
It is worth asking ourselves what this tableau, viewed from the vantage of pagan antiquity, would have meant. A man of noble birth, representing the power of Rome, endowed with authority over life and death, confronted by a barbarous colonial of no name or estate, a slave of the empire, beaten, robed in purple, crowned with thorns, insanely invoking an otherworldly kingdom and some esoteric truth, unaware of either his absurdity or his judge’s eminence. Who could have doubted where, between these two, the truth of things was to be found? But the Gospel is written in the light of the resurrection, which reverses the meaning of this scene entirely. If God’s truth is in fact to be found where Christ stands, the mockery visited on him redounds instead upon the emperor, all of whose regal finery, when set beside the majesty of the servile shape in which God reveals Himself, shows itself to be just so many rags and briars.
This slave is the Father’s eternal Word, whom God has vindicated, and so ten thousand immemorial certainties are unveiled as lies: the first become last, the mighty are put down from their seats and the lowly exalted, the hungry are filled with good things while the rich are sent empty away. Nietzsche was quite right to be appalled. Almost as striking, for me, is the tale of Peter, at the cock’s crow, going apart to weep. Nowhere in the literature of pagan antiquity, I assure you, had the tears of a rustic been regarded as worthy of anything but ridicule; to treat them with reverence, as meaningful expressions of real human sorrow, would have seemed grotesque from the perspective of all the classical canons of good taste. Those wretchedly subversive tears, and the dangerous philistinism of a narrator so incorrigibly vulgar as to treat them with anything but contempt, were most definitely signs of a slave revolt in morality, if not quite the one against which Nietzsche inveighed—a revolt, moreover, that all the ancient powers proved impotent to resist.
You may also want to read some Girardian thought on the matter of how Christ can be so impactful while being so weak. I have thoroughly enjoyed Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
2hr ago
I'll agree that there is some LARPing. Even worse, there's a lot of admiring the problem while only offering the most sketchy of solutions. Rod Dreher's The Benedict Option isn't much more than "Go to church a lot, only hang out with other people who go to your church, homeschool your kids." It isn't bad advice, but it also isn't some sort of systemic gameplan to RETVRN. There are also, yes, trads of all types who are still living in the matrix. I can remember a conversation with a young woman whom I befriended while temporarily living in DC. She was going through pre-marriage counseling with her local Catholic priest. She was bemoaing the fact that, on a questionnaire she had her fiancee had to fill out, it asked "who will be handling the household finances?" "Tollbooth!" She steamed, "What am I supposed to do? Just stand barefoot in the kitchen all day with a baby on my hip?"
Great comment. I especially like the above.
I do think in general the hypocrisy and frankly cowardice of the RETVRN people is what turns me off quite a bit, especially the big ones like Dreher. Also, their sheer lack of charity and love. I recently saw a post by Dreher after the school shooting that was titled something like "The Trannies are Coming to Kill Your Kids!"
Perhaps my disgust and frustration is more of an aesthetic stance, I do have to admit that folks are making good arguments here against my points that we must be liberal. I also just read the essay Christ and Nothing by David Bentley Hart, and I'll admit it shifted my view on the modern, liberal consensus. (being high openness can be exhausting, sometimes.)
So, in general what do you think is a more positive vision of merging traditional society with modern technology? To me there are obvious problems, and there's also the problem of the cratering of ecclesiastic authority. Which incidentally, I don't see as a theological problem as it has happened many times before. But how do we square these issues?
I would not be surprised if half of the workers were arguably violating the terms of their visas, but I expect the modal case here looks like "a worker for one of Hyundai's subcontractors was here on a B1 to suprvise the installation of equipment, and demonstrated to a worker on site how the machine was supposed to be hooked up when they're technically only allowed to describe" not like "Hyundai shipped in 500 Koreans on tourist visas to do unskilled construction work building the factory".
I am unsure if there are any good and timely metrics but I would be quite surprised to see e.g. table 42d here showing 475 more (or even half that more) noncitizen enforcement returns to South Korea in 2025 than in 2024 - for reference the current latest data is 713 returns in 2022. (The latest available year here is 2022, so it might be a while before 2025 daya shows up). And my read is that DHS would enforce if they have even a vaguely plausible case of visa violation, so I think absence of this particular evidence would be evidence of absence of such a case.
More options
Context Copy link