Even more problematic stuff

[Forty Two]

What the...?

A College Student Was Told To Remove A "Fuck Nazis" Sign Because It Wasn't "Inclusive"

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/le ... LbIKNDtNe4

Well, yeah - I mean, just because they're Nazis doesn't mean they should be discriminated against or stigmatized. It's like how all the chronophobes are stigmatizing the "minor attracted persons" these days.

[Forty Two]

Quite so. The logic of the right - the ‘new’ right - these days is that liberalism is totally in favour of all the forces that have the potential to ‘destroy our way of life’. This hyperbolic rhetoric feeds into a propaganda stream that appeals to the stupid and fearful of this world and hoovers up the masses so that the right builds up a ground swell and a pseudo legitimacy. It is based on deception, not facts, and is a true evil. Trump and his like tap into this travesty. They are exploiting ignorance and fear.

Liberalism, no, but leftism disguised as liberalism, yes. The shit that makes the news always seems to be a spit in many people's faces - like the latest craze that Santa Clause should be displayed a trans woman, or gay and married to a black guy.

People should, of course, be free to do what they want. Hire a person to be Santa as a trans woman or whatever, or black and gay - that's what you're allowed to do. However, it's not hateful or racist to say that Santa is not a trans woman or is not black and gay, in the traditional story. And, it's definitely a poke in the eye to people who just want the holiday to be with the normal Santa Claus with the normal Santa Clause tales. And, that kind of thing comes from the leftists these days, and it's the same batch or faction that constantly points fingers at anything traditional and calls it racist and hateful. People tend not to appreciate that.

It's the left that applauds this shit as "brave" and "progressive" -- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39409/11 ... stigiacomo - 11 year old trans drag queen dancing in a gay bar in New York City at night. I mean, this is something to be celebrated?

Left-wing site The Daily Beast gushed over Desmond and his progressive parents in a disturbing piece from February, titled, "RuPaul Loves 'Drag Kid' Desmond. You Will Too. Fiercely." In June, the TODAY Show promoted the over-sexualized child: "Meet the 10-year-old 'drag kid' taking over social media with inspiring message," reads the caption to a video interview with Desmond.

I mean, it's fucking ridiculous. Taking a small child to drag bars and dressing him or her up in costumes and engaging in sexualized dancing for adults. And, that's the kind of thing that the regular folks around town see and say "what the fuhhhhh.....?" and because they say "what the fuhhhhhh....?" the "liberalism/leftist" folks point fingers and call them 'phobes and hateful or whatever other dopey slur of that nature.

The next one coming down the pike is tolerance of all paraphilias, and we have to understand the "minor attracted persons" etc. They're going to want to make sure that someone's "identity" as a "minor attracted person" is not something you can fire or refuse to hire somebody for. It's not their choice, it's their gender identity. LOL

And, then regular folk look at the leftists and see them suggest that it's racist and hateful to not want millions of illegal immigrants coming across the border to live under the radar and off the books in the United States.

And, it absolutely does effect regular people -- when you have masses of people in, say, flooring, paving, landscaping, and house/office cleaning services that are illegal immigrants, it DOES effect the prices of those services and it effects the price of labor. Americans who are living openly and on the books have expenses and obligations that the illegal immigrant community do not have and do not abide by. And, then the leftist folks will say that "no Americans will do those jobs!" (meaning they themselves won't do those jobs - but the fact is plenty of Americans would do those jobs and can do those jobs, and the income for such jobs would be higher if there wasn't the glut of competition from those who operate under the radar).

It doesn't mean the entire civilization is going to be "destroyed" in a literal sense, but that's not the test, is it? Do we have to wait for the eve of destruction?

[pErvinalia]

..the movement toward greater regulation of our economies, more and more social safety net programs, more government assistance...

What alternate universe are you living in?

[Cunt]

It's the left that applauds this shit as "brave" and "progressive" -- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39409/11 ... stigiacomo - 11 year old trans drag queen dancing in a gay bar in New York City at night. I mean, this is something to be celebrated?

Left-wing site The Daily Beast gushed over Desmond and his progressive parents in a disturbing piece from February, titled, "RuPaul Loves 'Drag Kid' Desmond. You Will Too. Fiercely." In June, the TODAY Show promoted the over-sexualized child: "Meet the 10-year-old 'drag kid' taking over social media with inspiring message," reads the caption to a video interview with Desmond.

I mean, it's fucking ridiculous. Taking a small child to drag bars and dressing him or her up in costumes and engaging in sexualized dancing for adults. And, that's the kind of thing that the regular folks around town see and say "what the fuhhhhh.....?" and because they say "what the fuhhhhhh....?" the "liberalism/leftist" folks point fingers and call them 'phobes and hateful or whatever other dopey slur of that nature.

If the parents are making money off this kind of performance, it makes it especially disgusting. As awful as child beauty pageants, maybe even more.

I would not do this to my kid, whether or not they enjoyed dressing in costume.

[Brian Peacock]

Immigration isn't generally an issue when the economy is working for regular folk, when they have secure employment, decent housing, schools, healthcare etc and good prospects. Well, that's not entirely true: it's always an issue, but one that usually only really burns for those pathologically disposed to believing that the accident of their own birth imbues their being, views, and actions with default virtue. Anyway...

Being a citizen or lawful resident of a country is not a "virtue." It's a legal status, and the accident of one's birth in a given country to a national of that country generally does imbue the being with citizenship status. The accident of birth in a different country does not imbue that person with any legal right to reside in or be a citizen of other countries.

The lie about how the economy of a nation works is that it operates like a big bank account, such that if you're doing badly, if your wages are stagnating, if you have poor employment options, patchy access to good housing, education and healthcare etc, then it must be because somebody else is dipping their sticky hand in the pot.

That's one way to put it. Another is that the supply of labor impacts price of labor. And, also that the resources of the state are not unlimited. Another way is that countries exist and that just as it would be disruptive for a variety of reasons to have millions of Europeans migrate to north Africa, it is no less disruptive to have it go in reverse.

Over the last 40 years or so the economies of Western nations has been systematically revised, manipulated really, to disadvantage regular folk because its focus has been to boost the asset-wealth of the wealthy - they being the ones who have bankrolled political success.

If so, then the economies of western nations having adopted higher minimum wages, greater social safety nets, and more government assistance has operated to disadvantage regular folk. Is that what you're saying? It was easier to be a regular folk in 1978 than it is today?

It is no coincidence that it is the asset-rich who are the first and the keenest to tell us regular folk that it's the sticky handed outsiders who are stealing our future, and indeed our present - when in fact it's actually been happening right under our noses for quite a while. And we voted for it!

You think the wealthier are keener to be anti-immigration than "regular folk?" The "regular folk" are keener to say that we should let all the illegal immigrants in?

But, it sounds like you believe that the movement toward greater regulation of our economies, more and more social safety net programs, more government assistance, and other "protections" have actually had the opposite of the intended effect.

That's not a very charitable reading of what I wrote, which was something posted in the context of what had been posted before it: the apparent preoccupation of the right with immigration and the burdensome fears which the idea of 'the outsider' seems to engender in them.

I didn't say that 'being a citizen or lawful resident of a country is a virtue,' or not a virtue for that matter. I characterised some of those for whom immigration is a burning issue as being "pathologically disposed to believing that the accident of their own birth imbues their being, views, and actions with default virtue". You know the kind of people who I'm talking about here don't you: those who think being born in a particular country, their country, is fundamentally better and makes them fundamentally better people than those born in any other country- and not in a qualitative way, but in a specifically moral sense.

However, that was an adjunct to the point I was actually making: that people generally don't worry about 'outsiders' stealing their jobs when the economy is working well for them, and that the economy of a nation isn't balanced like a bank account, nor does it operate as a kind of natural system that obeys some natural law of equilibrium. No, an economy it is a complex of structural arrangements -- including element such as employment law and practice, to which you referred -- and human behaviour.

Some may find it comforting perhaps, though somewhat reductive, to say, as you do, that jobs are insecure and wages are low because there's too many 'outsiders' in the labour market, and consequently, and through that force akin to a nature law, a large labour pool drives down wages, opportunities, and standards etc. However, in this context saying that ignores the structural elements of the jobs economy and again turns the focus towards 'the outsider' as the significant cause of all pressing economic, social, and political ills.

Consider the fact that unemployment across the Western world is at historically low levels. How exactly is a large labour market driving down wages when more of us are actually in employment than ever before, and how would the economy improve for us regular folk if a proportion of that market, say, the non-native proportion, was removed or excluded? Who would fill those vacancies? How would that effect a nation's economic productivity?

The evidence that the asset-rich have done well out of the economy over the last 40 years, from the era of Reagan and Thatcher onwards, is clear. Regular workers wages buy little more than they did in the 1980s, relatively speaking, and average household debt is significantly higher now than it was then then. What I'm saying is that when we're working longer hours for less money in insecure jobs with mounting debts, when prices continue to rise faster than your income, and when somebody comes along and says that immigration and immigrants are at the root of all your stresses, we should be more than a little cautious - particularly when those peddling these kinds of stories are the one's who have overseen the kinds of regulatory and statutory reforms that have structured our economies to work the way they do today.

[Cunt]

More problematic stuff:
Alessandro Strumia was lied about and scolded for having the gall to bring up evidence, in a forum where he was supposed to be kowtowing to womens concerns.

He made the critical error of showing (via science tools) that women were advantaged in the sciences, gaining postings over men who had better scores (related to their number of papers/citations)

Now CERN has pulled down the presentation (so that everyone can continue to tell the story they would like about what he said) in defense of those delicate female scientists who might be frightened off back to gender studies majors by the mean assembly of male facts presented by this - no doubt privileged - asshole.

[Brian Peacock]

"those delicate female scientists" says far more than I think you intended to Mr Cunt.

[Forty Two]

That's not a very charitable reading of what I wrote, which was something posted in the context of what had been posted before it: the apparent pre-occupation of the right with immigration and the burdenous fears which the idea of 'the outsider' seems to engender.

I find there to be a constant drumbeat that the the other side (typically the left talking about the right) is in some state of constant fear, and there can be no rational viewpoint expressed - it's just irrational fear. However, if you look at who actually SAYS they are afraid, it often comes from the left, where they declare abject fear of a variety of things. Fear and angst over global warming. Fear and angst over Trump being President -- we are "afraid" many people said. Fear of a Republican judicial nominee. Fear of right wingers speaking in public. Fear fear fear. Yet, that same crowd points fingers at other who are not expressing literal fear, but they are nevertheless declaring that an opposition to certain policies is, in fact, a massive fear.

I've mentioned this before, but I am a child of immigrants. I am married to an immigrant. We have dual nationality children. We are well-traveled. Yet, my wife and parents (all immigrants) are far more anti-illegal immigrant than I am. They are all pro-Trump, pro-Wall, and very disdainful of illegal immigrants. And, they ARE immigrants. Can you guess why they might be off-put by illegal immigrants, even though they are immigrants? Would you suggest that they live in fear of immigrants?

I'm pro-choice, my wife is pro-Life. I'm an atheist. She believes in a god. Who lives in fear?

I didn't say that 'being a citizen or lawful resident of a country is a virtue,' or not a virtue for that matter. I characterised some of those for whom immigration is a burning issue as being "pathologically disposed to believing that the accident of their own birth imbues their being, views, and actions with default virtue".

Yes, and you provided nothing to back that up. When I hear people talking about this issue, those opposed to illegal immigration do so not because they think the accident of anyone's birth imbues them with any virtues. Have you heard anyone say that? Have you heard anyone say words to that effect? Where? Or, are you concluding that must be the case, because you do not believe there are any good rational arguments against illegal immigration, or in favor of limiting immigration in general?

What I usually hear from "the right" is that an influx of millions of third world illegal immigrants brings with it social problems - competition for unskilled labor, which hurts the American poor and unskilled (the "weakest among us" to use a stupid-ass turn of phrase), and operate as a drain on social resources (welfare, education resources, housing resources, other social safety net stuff), and that they bring some social upheaval when the change in culture is fast - different customs. It's not fear, per se, or a theory of some sort of virtue, that has people who grew up in Dearborn, Michigan express alarm that suddenly when you drive down Michigan Avenue you see store after store and billboard after billboard with the adverts and names written in Arabic first (with little English translations down below). That's a bit of social upheaval that some folks might not appreciate - that's nothing to do with virtue and fear. It would operate just as easily in reverse, if a city full of Americans moved to Saudi Arabia and converted a town in a few short years to an English speaking town with Americanized culture.

You know the kind of people who I'm talking about here don't you: those who think being born in a particular country, their country, is fundamentally better and makes them fundamentally better people than those born in any other country- and not in a qualitative way, but in a specifically moral sense.

That "kind" of people? well, I don't, actually, because I don't know a single person who has ever said anything like that. I know that there are people who identify politically left who accuse their opposition of thinking such things. But, I've never heard anyone express that. Do you have any prominent examples of such people or groups? Maybe Stormfront? I don't even know that group ever said they were fundamentally "Better People" because they were born in the US - I think they say they are fundamentally better people because they're white, Protestant and sexually heterosexual.

However, that was an adjunct to the point I was actually making: that people generally don't worry about 'outsiders' stealing their jobs when the economy is working well for them, and that the economy of a nation isn't balanced like a bank account, nor does it operate as a kind of natural system that obeys some natural law of equilibrium. No, an economy it is a complex of structural arrangements -- including element such as employment law and practice, to which you referred -- and human behaviour.

The economy in the US is working well for most people. Unemployment is down to like 3.7% with a record high labor participation rate. That's fantastic. Having a job is pretty much the first step to an economy working well for someone. And, an influx of masses of people competing for unskilled jobs does impact the economy. But the consequences of illegal immigration economically are not the only reason to limit it. There is a need to know who the immigrants are, and where they are, and there is a need to have a process that is considered fair by the citizenry of any country by which new members of the nation are added. Your country has one, and I daresay if a million people were going to be just waltzing into your country this year and they just weren't going to follow the law as to proper entry, wouldn't you consider that rather un-good?

Some may find it comforting perhaps, though somewhat reductive, to say, as you do, that jobs are insecure and wages are low because there's too many 'outsiders' in the labour market, and consequently, and through that force akin to a nature law, a large labour pool drives down wages, opportunities, and standards etc. However, in this context saying that ignores the structural elements of the jobs economy and again turns the focus towards 'the outsider' as the significant cause of all pressing economic, social, and political ills.

Nobody seems to be calling them "the outsiders" but you, and nobody said they were the significant cause of all pressing economic, social and political ills. It's not unusual the world over to have a system of legal entry to a country. If I try to enter Canada without proper authorization today, they will send me home. Immediately. Say I work for an employer who has a plant in Canada. I drive to the Ambassador Bridge, and stop at Canadian customs. I say, I'm going to the auto plant there in Ontario to do some stuff for my boss. The Canadian immigration guy is going to say, o.k. where are your papers that authorize you to work there and qualify you for entry to Canada? If I say, my dog ate them, but I'm a migrant looking for a better life, and here, look, I have a small child with me, we need help. You know what the Canadian immigration guy is going to do? Tell me to pull over - they'll make me sit in a little office as they search my car - I will have no choice in the matter - they will find nothing in the car, but they will then pack my ass up and my kid and send me back to the US. They won't give a fuck if I'm going to be on the street in Detroit, in the freezing cold. Is that because they fear me? They think I'm coming to take their jobs and their women?

No, of course not - and most Canadians would think it just fine and rational to send me back to the US. Why? Because it makes sense. I'm not allowed to work in Canada without authorization? Why? Is it because I'm "the outsider" who they "fear?" Are they irrationally thinking that I and others like me are the significant cause of ALL their ills???

Of course not. It's because there needs to be a rational system of government, and of entry into a country, and there are rules about who can work in the country and who cannot so the government can keep some control over the system as a whole.

Now picture me as Mexican. Suddenly, you think everyone who thinks I should be sent back to the US is afraid of me, and accusing me of causing all their ills? Or not in Canada? In Canada, the people, including the right, have rational reasons for supporting reasonable immigration systems and controls, but in the US, there is this huge "fear" of "the outsider?"

Consider the fact that unemployment across the Western world is at historically low levels. How exactly is a large labour market driving down wages when more of us are actually in employment than ever before, and how would the economy improve for us regular folk if a proportion of that market, say, the non-native proportion, was removed or excluded? Who would fill those vacancies? How would that effect a nation's economic productivity?

Add supply, downward trend on price, all else being equal. That's basic. The fact that we have a good economy doesn't constitute a reason to allow illegal migration of masses of people uncontrolled, undocumented and against legally required procedures.

A person with a $1,000,000 in the bank may not be hurt much by having his lawnmower stolen, but if the thief is caught red handed, we still prosecute him. It's still a crime.

How would the economy improve for unskilled laborers if the supply of Mexicans dried up, for example? Do you really not know? Instead of a Mexican illegal immigrant, used to working for $2 a day in Tijuana, comes to the US, he can make $10 an hour here. If those folks are gone, then young, unskilled Americans can go and fill those jobs. And, don't be racist and say that white Americans won't take those jobs - they will. I grew up in a white, middle-class suburban town, and my white friends and I all had unskilled laborer and light construction jobs from the age of 17 to 22. We made good money because those jobs are hard - and who else worked with us - always some third-worlder immigrants, some legal and some illegal. Take away the supply of illegal immigrants for that job and the employer has to find others to do it. The roof still needs to go on. The nails need to be banged in. The junk needs to be cleaned up.

The evidence that the asset-rich have done well out of the economy over the last 40 years, from the era of Reagan and Thatcher onwards, is clear. Regular workers wages buy little more than they did in the 1980s, relatively speaking, and average household debt is significantly higher now than it was then then. What I'm saying is that when we're working longer hours for less money in insecure jobs with mounting debts, when prices continue to rise faster than your income, and when somebody comes along and says that immigration and immigrants are at the root of all your stresses, we should be more than a little cautious - particularly when those peddling these kinds of stories are the one's who have overseen the kinds of regulatory and statutory reforms that have structured our economies to work the way they do today.

The evidence that everyone has done will is clear.

Who said "immigration and immigrants are at the root of all your stresses?" Who said words to that effect? When? Where? Aren't you really just assuming or concluding what you think someone "really means" when they talk about opposing illegal immigration?

And, let's be clear -- you're suggesting that there are a lot of people saying that "immigration and immigrants are at the root." Hardly anyone says anything like that in the US. They say ILLEGAL immigration is wrong and should be stopped for a variety of reasons. The vast majority of people, even on "the right" have no issue with legal immigration. And, that is demonstrated by our legal immigration policy, with hands out 1,000,000 new green cards and 1,000,000 new naturalization certificates annually, as it has done for decades. That's not including those coming on visas, which are many many many millions of people.

There is nothing inappropriate about being against thousands, tens of thousands and over time millions of people pouring across the border without regard for law or immigration procedure, work rules, or the society into which they are moving.

[Forty Two]

"those delicate female scientists" says far more than I think you intended to Mr Cunt.

In fairness, it sounded from the context as if he was using that term ironically - suggesting that those who would fire Strumia for telling the truth were implying that women were delicate female scientists who could not handle the truth but would be chased off to the gender studies camp.

And, what's with this habit around here of saying things like "that says more than you intended..." or "that's all I need to know about you..." kind of thing. If you think that says something, write down what you are inferring from that. Instead, you leave the comment pregnant -- it's a cliffhanger -- this says something ... what does it say? Something ominous. Mr. Cunt thinks women are delicate? Female scientists are delicate? He hates women? He's sexist or a misogynist? What? What do you think his use of that phrase "says?"

[Forty Two]

..the movement toward greater regulation of our economies, more and more social safety net programs, more government assistance...

What alternate universe are you living in?

Well, I don't know what Australia has done, but there are far more regulation of our economy here in the US now than 40 years ago, and there are FARRRRR more social safety net programs and government assistance in the US in 2018 than in 1978. Far more.

[Forty Two]

It's the left that applauds this shit as "brave" and "progressive" -- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39409/11 ... stigiacomo - 11 year old trans drag queen dancing in a gay bar in New York City at night. I mean, this is something to be celebrated?

Left-wing site The Daily Beast gushed over Desmond and his progressive parents in a disturbing piece from February, titled, "RuPaul Loves 'Drag Kid' Desmond. You Will Too. Fiercely." In June, the TODAY Show promoted the over-sexualized child: "Meet the 10-year-old 'drag kid' taking over social media with inspiring message," reads the caption to a video interview with Desmond.

I mean, it's fucking ridiculous. Taking a small child to drag bars and dressing him or her up in costumes and engaging in sexualized dancing for adults. And, that's the kind of thing that the regular folks around town see and say "what the fuhhhhh.....?" and because they say "what the fuhhhhhh....?" the "liberalism/leftist" folks point fingers and call them 'phobes and hateful or whatever other dopey slur of that nature.

If the parents are making money off this kind of performance, it makes it especially disgusting. As awful as child beauty pageants, maybe even more.

I would not do this to my kid, whether or not they enjoyed dressing in costume.

A 10 year old doesn't get these drag costumes and fancy make-up on their own. Of course it's the parents. Doesn't matter if the kid is gay or trans or whatever - but this shit is not carved in stone, especially at 10. Kids go through phases. One day they like dinosaurs, the next they don't. One day they like Frozen, the next day it's just for babies. They have emotions, feelings, attitudes which fluctuate like the wind. If your son puts on mom's clothes that he finds around the house, it doesn't mean he's trans or gay or a drag queen. He might think it's something to do at the time, and then after a while lose complete interest. Girls are often tomboys when they're 10 years old, it doesn't mean they'll grow up to be lesbians or trans. We don't have to "encourage" (or discourage) their behaviors. Sick fucking parents - "oh, my son wanted to put on make-up and wear mommy's clothes - he must be trans - let's encourage his behavior and buy him costumes and applaud him endlessly to reinforce it, and then let's take him out to the local gay bar and have him do a drag show on stage." I feel sorry for that kid.

[Brian Peacock]

Forty Two. From what I know of you I wouldn't characterise you as someone who considers immigration a 'burning issue' - though that's not to say you don't think it's important. I don't think you're preoccupied by immigration or immigrants, and I don't think you're a 'send them all back to their Bongo-bongoland shitholes' kind of guy. But why do you take umbrage when I characterise that element of the far-right which do hold those kinds of views? Why do you defend your own position against a charge nobody is making against you?

That said, I don't accept your opinion that nobody is making those kinds of statements at all or that mainstream politics, at least in the UK and the US, hasn't upped it's use of anti-immigrant rhetoric: we've all heard about tidal waves, or tsunamis, or armies of criminal immigrants flooding the country, stories of about how dangerous and violent these outsiders are, etc, and the copious promises that politicians operating on this premise have made about protecting us economically and physically from the hordes at the gates. It's predominantly coming from the right. But the rhetoric doesn't match the facts.

[pErvinalia]

..the movement toward greater regulation of our economies, more and more social safety net programs, more government assistance...

What alternate universe are you living in?

Well, I don't know what Australia has done, but there are far more regulation of our economy here in the US now than 40 years ago, and there are FARRRRR more social safety net programs and government assistance in the US in 2018 than in 1978. Far more.

Did you miss the massive economic, financial, and labour deregulation that occurred when Reagan and Thatcher were at the helm of their respective countries? And regarding social safety nets, produce some evidence. I'd be very surprised if spending on social programs is greater now as a proportion of GDP than it was before Reagan.

[laklak]

Dont know what it was back in Reagan's era, but here is the 2015 breakdown. Looks like a massive proportion goes to social programs of one sort or another.

[pErvinalia]

And so it should. What's the point of government if not the welfare of its citizens?