domain:dualn-back.com
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
4hr ago
Obviously the market is distorted by access to illegal labor, as much as a market would be distorted if people were allowed to own slaves.
This reminds me of the "libertarian" on Twitter who thought "the government opening the border" was "statism."
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
7hr ago
Sewing bras is more conducive to wellbeing than stacking them on a shelf.
Then buy yourself a sewing machine. We shouldn't make national policy choices based on psychological theories like that.
In what world would “picking fruit” be pathetic? I think you are having trouble dissociating the image you have of these things now, with what they would look like if employers didn’t have a semi-slave class. There’s a farm near me where people — college-educated, white, smart — sign up to plant and reap for free. Because in return they get free room and board, and most importantly a social environment filled with other young white people. They work quite hard, then they drink in the evenings and dance and fuck and make music and so on. This is exactly what agricultural work was for nearly all of history.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
9hr ago
AlexanderTurok, You claim that you are "anti third-worldism", but if that is true, why have you consistently aligning yourself with those who are trying to make the US more like a third-world country against those who want to make it great?
It wasn't MAGA that turned San Francisco into a fecese-strewn open-air drug market. It wasn't MAGA that worked behind the scenes to put a dementia patient in the Whitehouse. And it is not MAGA that has been marching in solidarity with HAMAS, shooting at federal officers, or trying to put a Communist in Gracie Mansion.
Good thing I haven't aligned with any of that.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
9hr ago
So you want a serf/slave class of the "inferior" brown people because such jobs are below the dignity of the "superior" white people (never mind that white people all over the world used to, and still do, such jobs). We needn't be afraid that the browns will do anything, because we should (as the superiors) ensure they have no rights apart from being cheap disposable labour until robots can do the job and hence they will be debarred from polluting our culture due to not being able to influence it, and we shouldn't encourage white people to pick up the slack by doing these low-class jobs because such jobs are only fit for low-class people and we don't want low-class white trash, that reflects poorly on our superiority.
I don't agree with "no rights apart from being cheap disposable labour." All their negative rights should be respected, though not "rights" to collect welfare or anything like that. The issue is not specifically racial. I don't think anyone should aspire to those kinds of occupations, nor romanticize or fetishize them.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
20hr ago
This part:
This is exactly why we have the rule,
Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible.
Is ridiculously selectively applied, e.g. basically any time people use "the establishment" as a foil they're guilty of this, but they don't get modhatted. As it stands, the rule is merely another cudgel to use against people making left-leaning arguments, although in this case I don't think an unbiased application of this rule would be particularly good either. It just makes it clunky to talk about subsets of a group that believe in specific ideas that might not be shared among the whole group.
Though I do agree the "I expect that RandomRanger will withdraw his claim" is fairly presumptuous here.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
7hr ago
So your answer to the question of how White Americans can compete with semi-slave illegal workers is
Why in God's name would you want to?
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
9hr ago
Why do you think it makes sense to say that the views of some random politician are emblematic of the "online racialist Right"?
She's a member of the United States Cabinet!
Lotta people have gotten used to being out of power. Now that Trump is President they're forced to either defend the administration they supported and voted for or criticize their own side, and they don't want to do either.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
2hr ago
Why is a Mexican meatpacker hired over the American one?
Why are you beating your wife?
My whole contention here is that illegals are doing that work because both illegals and Americans do not want to do it but only the latter have the skills to do better jobs.
An American worker cannot compete with a Mexican agricultural worker for the same reason he can't compete with a Chinese industrial factory worker
Odd, then, that American workers make far more money than Chinese industrial factory workers or Mexican agricultural workers on either side of the border.
It's the woke left vs the woke right. The woke left demands affirmative action for blacks so they can work in business, law, medicine, and government. Envy is felt toward whites for their higher-paying and better jobs. "The test is culturally biased!" The woke right demands set-aside jobs for Americans so they can pick fruit in the summer sun, being envious of illegal aliens for some reason.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
9hr ago
The truth is "American don't want to do those jobs for those wages" and that is what this is (and has always been) about, wages.The Plantation owners don't want to pay the help, and once again the Democrats (who have always been the Party of the Plantation Owners) are once again threating civil war if they are not allowed to continue importing and exploiting thier non-citizen underclass.
Whenever committed ideological conservatives* hear about a minimum wage worker complaining about his low wage, they talk about productivity and demand curves and all that jazz. But mention that the worker is an illegal immigrant and all that logic goes out the window and he starts sounding like Bernie Sanders saying that the employer has infinite resources (to pay an American, not the illegal) and that only malevolence and greed stops the lowest-paid workers from getting 65$ an hour.
And even if the government could arbitrarily order wages to increase, why not order wages to increase for the better and cushier jobs Americans are more likely to do? Seems to me like it's a weird fantasy where Americans are supposed to work Bangladesh-level jobs (crop picking, textile sewing, etc) but get American wages for it because I guess the Bengali government is too stupid to just order wages to increase.
Also, most farmers vote Republican and the CSA constitution forbade the international slave trade.
*Not to be confused with normie GOP voters
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
11hr ago
if you are as racist as you claim, then surely you would prefer to live in a place where all jobs were done by white people, if only because it would mean that you would only have to interact with white people. But instead your position is that for abstract reasons, it offends you to allow white people to do manual labor, so its better to import brown people to do it, even though it means that you and your friends and family have to interact with brown people all the time?
Without anti-discrimination law people would be able to choose whether or how much they want to interact with brown people.
And you now risk brown people becoming a meaningful voting block in your society that can never be expunged.
A reasonable concern. But it's worth looking at the impact on America so far. In Florida and Texas, the majority of Hispanics voted for Trump. Hispanics nationally still voted slightly more often for Democrats, but if you account for the fact that Hispanics are more likely to support centrist than far-left Dems, (just look at the melanin content of a pride rally or a DSA meeting) it doesn't seem like they're moving America to the left at all.
I don't see how that's not strictly better than not taking it.
I'm not making the argument against taking the drug, I'm making the argument against being stuck in a local maximum.
The hell is a "complex" drug?
One that relies on an international supply chain for its industrial production and the existence of a large enough empire to secure sea lanes. A type-2 technology.
Do people not know what that word means?
Apparently they don't anymore.
From The Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 1:
Addicted (adi-kted),///. a.
[f. ADDICTS. + -ED.]
3. Self-addicted (to a practice); given, devoted or inclined; attached, prone.
From The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
addicted adjective /əˈdɪktɪd/ [not before noun]
unable to stop using or doing something as a habit, especially something harmful
Saying diabetics are addicted to insulin because they would die without it is a tautology.
So is saying men are slaves to biological necessity. These are realities well understood since antiquity.
Such addictions may well be natural, but they are cumbersome, and one of the common criticisms of modernity is that it has tricked people into novel addictions under the guise of liberating them from natural ones. I would have thought this line of reasoning to be popular enough as to not demand explanation. But here we are.
This is all such immensely confused thinking that I don't know how such beliefs can even arised. At the very least, it is factually incorrect.
I could throw it all back in your direction, but I'm afraid I know too well the source of your confusion, and it is that you think American Psychologists among other colleges of experts have dominion over the English language and its conceptual space. As if they can declare the valence of things by fiat.
It is an all too common sort of delusion that leads people to demand pronouncements from these priests as to whether certain lifestyles are or are not illnesses.
But as we are now in a place that is open to people who are not adherents of this religion, I therefore enjoin you to consider that such authority is not self-evident.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
18hr ago
I don't get your point about "the establishment" in this particular context. Why does it matter if they have power (real or perceived) in regards to whether it's a specific or general group. Most people, even politicians, don't see themselves as "establishment". For some people, Trump as POTUS is the epitome of "establishment". For others, calling him that word is utterly ludicrous. Note that I personally think it's fine for people to attack "the establishment" -- I'm opposed to this rule in general.
And I'm not defending his post wholesale -- I agree the last bit is presumptuous and I'm fine with him being given a warning for something like that. I don't think throwing the gauntlet to someone like this is really that bad, but maybe I'm in the minority on that. I think personal attacks are far worse for productive conversations, which happen regularly and don't get punished (or even become AAQCs!) as long as it's someone with a right-wing opinion attacking someone with a left-wing opinion.
I also have some reservations with how it seems like a final warning from stuff like his previous post which didn't deserve a mod action at all.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
19hr ago
All you have done is clearly demonstrate that you have already made up your mind and no matter what hoops people jump through will not be sufficient.
first you lie
you would not bother to engage with and would dismiss it all out of hand
All you have done is make me update towards you also being a net-negative.
Yeesh, no thanks.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
19hr ago
If AOC says something and isn't broadly getting a lot of pushback from her party, that would be quite indicative that at least a major fraction of the left believed something, or at least doesn't disagree with her. This is not weakmanning.
phailyoor
45m ago
Dunking on maga is great but you should be expected to explain and defend your position. Not drop a cryptic reply like "I'm anti third-worldism." several times and never explain what that means.
As far as I know the "official" definition, as an obsolete cold-war political movement, has nothing to do with the current right at all.
Your posy by itself does a better job dunking on maga than any of Alex's sneering walls of text.
ChestertonsMeme
blocking the federal fist
1hr ago
Not OP but his reputation was destroyed, and for someone like him what does he have left?
shoeonfoot
3hr ago
No, in fact, MAGA got upset when it seemed he might and Trump backed off.
I'm not sure. I think it was actually almost entirely Stephen Miller:
In White House meetings, Miller took the lead in dialing back the president from moving toward anything that could be branded an "amnesty" program.
One idea that was shot down: a "touchback" program under which laborers illegally in the U.S. would have go back to their nation of origin, get a U.S. work visa there and be able to return here.
"Stephen is so hardcore that the president almost jokes about it, saying that, 'You could have a person who has been here for 20 years and has a clean record and everyone loves them, and Stephen will say deport them,' " according to one person who heard Trump's remarks.
Were it not for Miller, we might have something like an amnesty, or at least the policy of not arresting farmworkers would have continued.
Look at the other issues. MAGA was almost entirely united against bombing Iran, and Trump did it anyway. MAGA had a meltdown over Epstein, and Trump dismissed it. I'm skeptical that Trump cares very much about what the Online Right portion of MAGA (which as you say, isn't really MAGA) thinks.
shoeonfoot
3hr ago
If you polled a white person, maybe 50% white, 30% black, 20% everyone else.
If you polled a black person, maybe 80% white, 10% black, 10% everyone else.
anon_
3hr ago
Head-to-toe tattoos and piercings signal massive nonconformity with social norms
Not really any more. Just like beards, they used to be non-conformist now they're common enough.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
4hr ago
It's only obvious to you because you aren't blessed with the worldliness of a mushroom.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4hr ago
I think it really just turns on what you consider "diversity". Obviously and famously past Americans considered Germans and Irish and such as contextually diverse in all four of those senses, while today we would probably not say the same of their descendants. I'm sure you could take a stab at some rough numbers about what it might have been over time if you used diversity "in context" for contemporaries, but that would probably be pretty difficult and subjective. Still, I like the instinct here, because it does always annoy me when we hear the similar idea about "division" being the worst it's ever been when the country literally fought a civil war before.
Linguistic and religious diversity might be exceptions, though. This article has a few stats for language that implies it was higher even (or especially) at the Founding, although also worth a side-note that the voting percentages would have been different to some extent. In terms of religious diversity that's also tricky - how do you count "religiously unaffiliated" and its various flavors? I don't really think a fair historical comparison is possible, and I guess you could try, but I won't.
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
The QoL of agricultural grunt workers has, in every society in history, been pretty bad. Yes, you can entice some college kids to do a bit of it over the summer for unlimited booze and sex, but I am very skeptical they'll do enough of it to replace migrants. 'Picking crops' is just a job that always inherently sucks.
The cost advantage of illegals is also not the only reason that illegals are preferred by lower blue collar employers; I don't know if you've met native white and black trash but they're both just awful. Drugs, dysfunctional relationships, poor communication and attendance, legal issues, poor conflict-management, unreliability, theft and dishonesty, laziness, etc are way worse among our native underclass- and illegals are themselves not necessarily role models with that stuff. Lots of them are essentially unemployable because that's who's left over in a society like the US where huge majorities of functional and capable people 'make it' out of having to do shitty unskilled labor for a living.
No_one
5hr ago
At this point tattoos signal nothing more than conformity or body dysmorphia.
Piercings are more serious, I'm not sure what they say except for 'lower social class' or maybe body dysmorphia.
You're broadly correct here: the anti-immigrant right (or "racialist Right") definitely don't regularly push back against claims that legal Americans would be willing to do those types of jobs. If they did, it would undercut their position that we should do mass deportations, so they either ignore it (like Catturd and friends) or they say legal Americans would do it if the price is right. The people claiming you're strawmanning Republicans in this specific post are hard to take seriously.
More options
Context Copy link