Fuck off, Jamie!

Old subthreads
Locked
CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2821

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Keating wrote: Exactly, Lsuoma. The alt-right completely goes away as a threat when culture and government sanction of white male bashing goes away. Pointing out that raced based idenitarianism is wrong, is pointless in attacking the alt-right. They’ve simply accepted the SocJus premise and run with it for their identiarian group. It isn’t helped that there are real differences between groups bestowed by evolution that we can’t discuss openly and honestly.

If people agitate the government to play identity politics, you can’t be surprised the group classed as The Enemy decides to play to win.
The problem is that the alt-right actually shores up support for the left. People tend to choose camps rather than deciding things on their merits, and the alt-right is driving people to side with the control-left.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2822

Post by Lsuoma »

Kirbmarc wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: You're missing Keating's point, I think, which really hits the nail on the head. It's nothing specifically to do with the motivation of the right. It's the fact that the government is trying to deal with a derivative problem, rather than the primary problem. If you do that you will just find that other derivative behaviors arise, none of which is going to be nice, and almost all of which will be worse than the one before.

Deal with the child-raping goatfuckers equitably, and the derivative problem goes away. Give the CRGFs a free pass, but try to crack down on those complaining about that, and you just make the problem worse. And it's going to get much, much worse if nothing is done about the CRGFs and other groups similarly situated.

Douglas Murray is very eloquent about this.
Things is that in order to curb child sexual assault in and from individuals who belong to muslim communities you need a strong consensus and an unified approach, in order to expose, document, isolate and punish not only the perps, but those who encourage them with lots of reactionary ideas (like "western women are all whores" or "child sex is great, Mohammed did it too" or "taking sex slaves is totally legit").

It's a long-term process, you not only need to arrest and punish those guilty of the crime, but to change behaviors in the muslim communities which enable those who commit those acts, provide them with excuses and support, and hinder cooperation with law enforcement. Otherwise you can throw the guilty parties in prison and throw away the key, but they'll just radicalize, or radicalize others, while new issues will pop up sooner or later. This isn't to say that you don't need strong enforcement of statutory rape and rape, with no "ifs" or "buts" or "cultural concerns": you do, and news like the one about the confusion whether it was "culturally acceptable" for a Iraqi man in his thirties to have a "girlfriend" of twelve are deeply concerning.

What I mean is that you ALSO need a long, cultural process, based on educating women in the muslim communities, holding imams (and other "community leaders") accountable for the reactionary things they say, let alone for supporting political violence.

You can't do this kind of long-term changes just from a far-right identitarian position that often shades into Steerman-esque ideas.

People like Tommy Robinson muddle the waters and are highly counterproductive to the ideas they say they want to promote. Robinson is a former English Defense League member, he's accused Sadik Khan of being "an invader", he's had a stupid fight/public confrontation with Quilliam, he's threatened to botch a trial and get some perps to use his antics to call for a mistrial.

I'm not saying that the government should ONLY focus on Robinson&co, or even MAINLY focus on them, but let's not kid ourselves, the alt-righters alienate A LOT of people, probably as many as they fascinate. They're very similar to the SocJus, actually: shit-stirring, publicity stunts, dogmatism, a victim mentality, etc.
The thing is, a goverment CAN'T let the CRGFs get away with it while bending over backwards to give them a free pass, especially while being perceived as targeting critics who call for you, as the government, to uphold the law on what is regarded, rightly, as one of the most vile crimes imaginable.

Seriously, consider what is happening - a very close-knit group of men, virtually all from one cultural and religious background, are GETTING YOUNG GIRLS DRUNK AND HIGH AND GANG-RAPING THEM. And they have been doing this for decades. This is such a horrible thing to be doing that there is no way the government can get away with doing nothing once it's brought to light. Mix that with the fact that Pakistanis and Muslims are rightly seen as the major perpetrators of terror against peaceable societies in Western Europe. At least for the last decade or so.

If the government doesn't try to address any of that shit, and tells the inhabitants of their country that they are bad for being angry about these crimes, well, you should expect a "backlash".

I'm stunned that you think that upholding the law right up front isn't something that should be done unless you are also "engaging" with communities who have chosen for a couple of generations to remain isolated and refused to integrate.

Sorry, you're fucking delusional if you think that is the path to success. I'd LOVE to see you dropped into a situation where you want to try and retain a cultural identity that has persisted for centuries but where you are told you're wicked for doing so, and evil for criticizing truly horrible criminals for their crimes.

Your mealy mouthed apologetics and advocacy for a (decades- or generations-?) long process makes you morally complicit in these crimes. If this isn't pipe-laying, it's maintenance for the sewers that have already been laid.

You're fucking nuts, and you truly, really do live in Cloud Cuckoo-Clock Land. Your attitude disgusts me more than I can say.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2823

Post by Lsuoma »

(In case anyone didn't notice, Ol' Kirbo has gone to the bottom of my estimation due to his horribly malfunctioning moral compass and his ostrich-like NIMBYism)

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2824

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Nobody will properly deal with the Muslim problem in Britain until it is framed in non-alt terms and with a digestible liberal perspective-in this, Kirb isn't wrong. People like Tommy Robinson provide easy fodder for the control-left, allowing them to attack the person instead of the arguments. You see this all the time. The arguments of Lauren Southern and the other braid bimbos only preach to the choir. The vast number of people that vote are often repelled by arguments that can easily be perceived as racist.

Are any of you involved in politics? Do you follow the delicate calculus that skilled politicians use? You must make broad appeals-anything that is easily dismissed as racist, sexist, homophobic is a non-starter. Yeah, it will fire up a few screeching base members, but on the whole, it doesn't work. Clinton still hasn't figured out that's what cost her ass the election. She appealed to a few, people reacted against that, and bam.

My local Representative is facing a challenger from the crazy left. If she wins, the seat will go Republican. This is a stupid political calculus on her part, but she's a true believer. True believers never get results.

If you want real change, to actually get the results you want, you make broad appeals that are fair and appeal to economic security. Anything else fires up the base and alienates everybody else. The framing of immigration should be couched in terms of economic cost and fairness, and the public will go for it. Frame it in terms of race and culture and you're farting into the wind.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2825

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Lsuoma wrote: (In case anyone didn't notice, Ol' Kirbo has gone to the bottom of my estimation due to his horribly malfunctioning moral compass and his ostrich-like NIMBYism)
And he hasn't answered my question of a link to the fun he had with Onion Bulla, which I know is a bugbear of yours, FT.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2826

Post by Keating »

If the child rape gangs had been dealt with properly even 10 years ago, Robinson wouldn’t have anywhere near the support he does now. Government failure in cracking down on child rape created Robinson. They give him more power by cracking down harder on him than fucking child rapists.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2827

Post by Lsuoma »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
If you want real change, to actually get the results you want, you make broad appeals that are fair and appeal to economic security. Anything else fires up the base and alienates everybody else. The framing of immigration should be couched in terms of economic cost and fairness, and the public will go for it.
Pols have fucked that one into the ground - it's now inexpressible for a politician to say that CRGFs need to be treated equally, and also that perhaps they aren't bringing the country into the rich uplands of GDP growth.[/quote]
Frame it in terms of race and culture and you're farting into the wind.
That may be the case now, but it could have worked decades ago (Enoch Powell was right?). But that's what successive governments have basically forced people into thinking. If you're not sophistimacated like you and Ol' Kirbo, then on the face of it, the issues ARE race and culture and the government are lying to you.

Yes, read between the lines of the above with some care, but I believe it's fundamentally true.

And you know what - if a battle to the death between Islamic Fundamentalism and Western Enlightenment is coming, well, go WE. If they have to fight for it, then people may actually appreciate it more.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2828

Post by Lsuoma »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: (In case anyone didn't notice, Ol' Kirbo has gone to the bottom of my estimation due to his horribly malfunctioning moral compass and his ostrich-like NIMBYism)
And he hasn't answered my question of a link to the fun he had with Onion Bulla, which I know is a bugbear of yours, FT.
In other words, he's partially full of shit. Yes.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2829

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Lsuoma wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
If you want real change, to actually get the results you want, you make broad appeals that are fair and appeal to economic security. Anything else fires up the base and alienates everybody else. The framing of immigration should be couched in terms of economic cost and fairness, and the public will go for it.
Pols have fucked that one into the ground - it's now inexpressible for a politician to say that CRGFs need to be treated equally, and also that perhaps they aren't bringing the country into the rich uplands of GDP growth.
Frame it in terms of race and culture and you're farting into the wind.
That may be the case now, but it could have worked decades ago (Enoch Powell was right?). But that's what successive governments have basically forced people into thinking. If you're not sophistimacated like you and Ol' Kirbo, then on the face of it, the issues ARE race and culture and the government are lying to you.

Yes, read between the lines of the above with some care, but I believe it's fundamentally true.

And you know what - if a battle to the death between Islamic Fundamentalism and Western Enlightenment is coming, well, go WE. If they have to fight for it, then people may actually appreciate it more.
[/quote]
We are already fighting for the Enlightenment. The question is how, in terms of tactics and strategy. The alt-right way is doomed. The alt-right will max out at under 10% of the population. The fight cannot be couched in terms of race, nor should it. Their are atheist Kenyans that share more enlightenment values than danger-haired white antifa college girls that have lived their whole sheltered lives in western democracies.

Yeah, different races and cultures often have values that are opposed to our values, but not all individuals do. If we fall prey to the fallacy that all of one culture are going to be a bad egg, we're playing the same card the SJWs use with men-yeah, the majority of rapists are men. However, the majority of men aren't rapists. There needs to be serious screenings and a very different means of evaluating refugees.

Immigration needs to be radically reformed, but if you kick them all out and watch as people flip out over $12 A pound chicken and $7 tomatoes. Then the open border people look good. People are largely concerned with their bottom line and culture a distant second. This is American-centric, but I believe at least some of the principles bleed into other western cultures. Cheap labor is an important part of our current economies. This equation will be made interesting by AI and automation. I suspect a great number of us Savannah apes will be made redundant.

Right now the battle is for the hearts and minds of the voting public, the hearts and minds of the vast unwashed. Politicians will follow the wind. If you make stupid Laren Southern arguments, expect stupid prizes. If you want to win, make fair, reasoned arguments that are difficult to attack.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2830

Post by Brive1987 »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Nobody will properly deal with the Muslim problem in Britain until it is framed in non-alt terms and with a digestible liberal perspective-in this, Kirb isn't wrong. People like Tommy Robinson provide easy fodder for the control-left, allowing them to attack the person instead of the arguments. You see this all the time. The arguments of Lauren Southern and the other braid bimbos only preach to the choir. The vast number of people that vote are often repelled by arguments that can easily be perceived as racist.

Are any of you involved in politics? Do you follow the delicate calculus that skilled politicians use? You must make broad appeals-anything that is easily dismissed as racist, sexist, homophobic is a non-starter. Yeah, it will fire up a few screeching base members, but on the whole, it doesn't work. Clinton still hasn't figured out that's what cost her ass the election. She appealed to a few, people reacted against that, and bam.

My local Representative is facing a challenger from the crazy left. If she wins, the seat will go Republican. This is a stupid political calculus on her part, but she's a true believer. True believers never get results.

If you want real change, to actually get the results you want, you make broad appeals that are fair and appeal to economic security. Anything else fires up the base and alienates everybody else. The framing of immigration should be couched in terms of economic cost and fairness, and the public will go for it. Frame it in terms of race and culture and you're farting into the wind.
Yeah. Trump.

And brexit. And Italy. And, increasingly, Swedish Democrats. And Hungary. And Poland. And Austria.

But thanks for your expert input.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2831

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Immigration needs to be radically reformed, but if you kick them all out and watch as people flip out over $12 A pound chicken and $7 tomatoes.
Douglas Murray scathingly summarizes the elitist goalpost shifting when rationalizing immigration:
* First they tell you it will help the economy. When that's disproven;
* Then they tell you we need more workers to support an aging population. When that's debunked;
* Then they tell you multiculturalism is a good thing. Then that's shown to be horribly wrong;
* Then they sneer at you and say: well immigration is gonna happen whether you like it or not, so get used to it.

Very accurate, except he left out the 'but muh $2 avocadoes!' stage.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2832

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Kirbmarc wrote:
kukla.jpg
(12.71 KiB) Downloaded 186 times

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2833

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2834

Post by Brive1987 »

Kirb always whistled up the alt-right spectre in order to dismiss any form of subtlety. It’s part of his disingenuous shtick.

He also maintains this “teach the men not to rape” line as if allowing and tolerating alien culture is reasonable and the West has to deal with it. Presumably because we are all borderless human-liberals inside. His dream of a peaceful multi-ethnic non-nationalist state is as weird as any alt-right day dream. All hail the universal and uniform values of, umm, rule of law and freedom of speech? :?

I assume his libtard ideology has its roots in his own ability to operate within Switzerland, having shed his Turkish Islamic beliefs. If he can do it, and assuming he wears lederhosen or whatever the fuck passes as ethnic Swiss, then so can the whole damn caravan that’s arriving from the tribal Pakistan bad-lands. And how wonderful that Chinese populations occupy Australian suburbs. And how quaint that they retain their culture and heritage while integrating freely speaking and abiding by laws.

What he hasn’t done is demonstrate the effectiveness of his wank in the real world.

Spain?
UK?
Belgium?
Netherlands?
Sweden?
Canadian urban centres (aka Toronto)?
Sydney?
Melbourne?
France?
Germany?

Nope. It’s bullshit.

We have loss of freedom of speech. We have laws being broken with acid, knives and bombs. We have loss of social and cultural cohesion. And we have the rise of counter movements. Pretty much the opposite of Kirbs mirage.

The only places on steady course haven’t tried the lib-tard experiment. East Europe. Switzerland to a large degree. Denmark is fighting back. So is Austria and Italy. Sweden is on the move. According to the wet-pit, even Canada, which doesn’t need FaithG because they are already nervous as fuck without her.

America stands alone as fascist civic nationalist.

No. Kirb needs to go back to his books and dreams, breaking only to yodel in response to a passing cow-bell.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2835

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Immigration needs to be radically reformed, but if you kick them all out and watch as people flip out over $12 A pound chicken and $7 tomatoes.
Douglas Murray scathingly summarizes the elitist goalpost shifting when rationalizing immigration:
* First they tell you it will help the economy. When that's disproven;
* Then they tell you we need more workers to support an aging population. When that's debunked;
* Then they tell you multiculturalism is a good thing. Then that's shown to be horribly wrong;
* Then they sneer at you and say: well immigration is gonna happen whether you like it or not, so get used to it.

Very accurate, except he left out the 'but muh $2 avocadoes!' stage.
My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes, as have many other vinyards. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples. This is indisputable.

That there needs to be a better system is apparent. That simply kicking them out would have no consequences should obviously be false as well. I don't think either extreme is the answer, but a sensible middle-path where workers are imported as needed without being given full access as citizens. If sufficient American workers can be rounded up, why, by all means, employ them. But if they can't without breaking American farmers, then let the market decide.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2836

Post by Brive1987 »

I don’t know if this chart is correct.

But it’s pretty.


CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2837

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2838

Post by Brive1987 »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Immigration needs to be radically reformed, but if you kick them all out and watch as people flip out over $12 A pound chicken and $7 tomatoes.
Douglas Murray scathingly summarizes the elitist goalpost shifting when rationalizing immigration:
* First they tell you it will help the economy. When that's disproven;
* Then they tell you we need more workers to support an aging population. When that's debunked;
* Then they tell you multiculturalism is a good thing. Then that's shown to be horribly wrong;
* Then they sneer at you and say: well immigration is gonna happen whether you like it or not, so get used to it.

Very accurate, except he left out the 'but muh $2 avocadoes!' stage.
My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes, as have many other vinyards. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples. This is indisputable.

That there needs to be a better system is apparent. That simply kicking them out would have no consequences should obviously be false as well. I don't think either extreme is the answer, but a sensible middle-path where workers are imported as needed without being given full access as citizens. If sufficient American workers can be rounded up, why, by all means, employ them. But if they can't without breaking American farmers, then let the market decide.
In this regard at least, Australia has it sorted.

Backpackers get a 12 month visa. If they want to extend, (once off option) they have to perform several months low/unpaid labour in a location of the Govt choosing. Picking shit off trees as a rule.

Problem solved.

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2839

Post by Guest_b8931fdb »





Jesus save me, I just listened to a Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan video.



CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2840

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Brive1987 wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Immigration needs to be radically reformed, but if you kick them all out and watch as people flip out over $12 A pound chicken and $7 tomatoes.
Douglas Murray scathingly summarizes the elitist goalpost shifting when rationalizing immigration:
* First they tell you it will help the economy. When that's disproven;
* Then they tell you we need more workers to support an aging population. When that's debunked;
* Then they tell you multiculturalism is a good thing. Then that's shown to be horribly wrong;
* Then they sneer at you and say: well immigration is gonna happen whether you like it or not, so get used to it.

Very accurate, except he left out the 'but muh $2 avocadoes!' stage.
My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes, as have many other vinyards. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples. This is indisputable.

That there needs to be a better system is apparent. That simply kicking them out would have no consequences should obviously be false as well. I don't think either extreme is the answer, but a sensible middle-path where workers are imported as needed without being given full access as citizens. If sufficient American workers can be rounded up, why, by all means, employ them. But if they can't without breaking American farmers, then let the market decide.
In this regard at least, Australia has it sorted.

Backpackers get a 12 month visa. If they want to extend, (once off option) they have to perform several months low/unpaid labour in a location of the Govt choosing. Picking shit off trees as a rule.

Problem solved.
Yep, sensible. Bring in workers only at demonstrated need, pay them, send them home. Win-win. If there was a sufficient system, illegal immigration would be practically eliminated. Instead both sides wrestle over trivialities and let serious problems run unchecked. Tighten up all the systems, eliminate political wrangling, allow for real-world economics and everybody wins. Sadly, that's not happening.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2841

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Brive1987 wrote: I don’t know if this chart is correct.

But it’s pretty.

It is. Sometimes being green is indeed easy.

some guy
.
.
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:05 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2842

Post by some guy »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes [for the wages he is willing to pay them], as have many other vinyards [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. This is indisputable.
(I think I'm just pointing out the often overlooked part of the situation that has high explanatory power.)

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2843

Post by KiwiInOz »

WEIT reminiscing about the Mickey Mouse Club song (and various once young hotties) made me think of Clutch Cargo for some reason. Of course it was all perfectly innocent, square jawed man taking young boy around the world for adventures. Here they are in Australia.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2844

Post by Brive1987 »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Immigration needs to be radically reformed, but if you kick them all out and watch as people flip out over $12 A pound chicken and $7 tomatoes.
Douglas Murray scathingly summarizes the elitist goalpost shifting when rationalizing immigration:
* First they tell you it will help the economy. When that's disproven;
* Then they tell you we need more workers to support an aging population. When that's debunked;
* Then they tell you multiculturalism is a good thing. Then that's shown to be horribly wrong;
* Then they sneer at you and say: well immigration is gonna happen whether you like it or not, so get used to it.

Very accurate, except he left out the 'but muh $2 avocadoes!' stage.
My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes, as have many other vinyards. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples. This is indisputable.

That there needs to be a better system is apparent. That simply kicking them out would have no consequences should obviously be false as well. I don't think either extreme is the answer, but a sensible middle-path where workers are imported as needed without being given full access as citizens. If sufficient American workers can be rounded up, why, by all means, employ them. But if they can't without breaking American farmers, then let the market decide.
In this regard at least, Australia has it sorted.

Backpackers get a 12 month visa. If they want to extend, (once off option) they have to perform several months low/unpaid labour in a location of the Govt choosing. Picking shit off trees as a rule.

Problem solved.
Yep, sensible. Bring in workers only at demonstrated need, pay them, send them home. Win-win. If there was a sufficient system, illegal immigration would be practically eliminated. Instead both sides wrestle over trivialities and let serious problems run unchecked. Tighten up all the systems, eliminate political wrangling, allow for real-world economics and everybody wins. Sadly, that's not happening.
I’m glad we are talking again. I’ll try to be less of an arse-hole.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2845

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote: snip

I’m glad we are talking again. I’ll try to be less of an arse-hole.
It's probably best to start with small achievable goals.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2846

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

some guy wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes [for the wages he is willing to pay them], as have many other vinyards [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. This is indisputable.
(I think I'm just pointing out the often overlooked part of the situation that has high explanatory power.)
The market dictates everything. Ignore it at your peril.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2847

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: snip

I’m glad we are talking again. I’ll try to be less of an arse-hole.
It's probably best to start with small achievable goals.
I'll take it. Because, rumor has it, I have been an asshole from time to time.

Those times being Monday thru Friday, not valid at all stores, offer void in Tennessee.

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2848

Post by feathers »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:55 am
No. Chicago has a very heavy gang-influenced culture, and has for some time now. Shootings are going up because of BLM and others undermining the effectiveness of police action. Indeed, the much-maligned FBI would have been a good choice to root out the kingpins of the gang leaders. What is happening instead is a steady erosion of police and LEO morale and hiring.
I wonder now if BLM gets funding from the mafia.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2849

Post by rayshul »

Keating wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:11 pm
If the child rape gangs had been dealt with properly even 10 years ago, Robinson wouldn’t have anywhere near the support he does now. Government failure in cracking down on child rape created Robinson. They give him more power by cracking down harder on him than fucking child rapists.
If child rape gangs had been dealt with 10 years ago, immigration had been made sensible and Muslims had been forced to assimilate into society, then no one would know wtf Tommy is.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2850

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

feathers wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:55 am
No. Chicago has a very heavy gang-influenced culture, and has for some time now. Shootings are going up because of BLM and others undermining the effectiveness of police action. Indeed, the much-maligned FBI would have been a good choice to root out the kingpins of the gang leaders. What is happening instead is a steady erosion of police and LEO morale and hiring.
I wonder now if BLM gets funding from the mafia.
I've heard that they get funding and support from gang leaders. This is purely anecdotal, so take it for what It's worth. But it does benefit the gangs tremendously. Lack of police oversight make them the go-to people for protection and righting real and perceived wrongs.

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2851

Post by piginthecity »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
some guy wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes [for the wages he is willing to pay them], as have many other vinyards [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. This is indisputable.
(I think I'm just pointing out the often overlooked part of the situation that has high explanatory power.)
The market dictates everything. Ignore it at your peril.
Isn't that the advice you should be giving your uncle ?

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2852

Post by MarcusAu »

Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsqRZDff2C0

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2853

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Here in France the Council of Restaurants and Caterers have just demanded the government speed up regularization of illegal immigrants because they need the workforce. The reason being: no sane French citizen would accept to work long and hard hours for the ridiculous wages they're offer.

So sure, let's regularize the illegals instead of forcing said council to raise the wages. After all, the Big Guy needs money.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2854

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I should mention unemployment here is at 9% right now...

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2855

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

piginthecity wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
some guy wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: My uncle has had a hard time rounding up workers to harvest grapes [for the wages he is willing to pay them], as have many other vinyards [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. Farmers in Washington have insufficient workers to harvest apples [for the wages they are willing to pay them]. This is indisputable.
(I think I'm just pointing out the often overlooked part of the situation that has high explanatory power.)
The market dictates everything. Ignore it at your peril.
Isn't that the advice you should be giving your uncle ?
What good would it do? Nobody other than the south-of-the-border people will do the work for anything remotely profitable. He wouldn't take a pay cut, he'd be out of business. He only employs legal workers, but right now there is a labor shortage in the USA. Wages though, are not significantly rising, odd that. But if you read the articles I linked in my reply to Matt, you'll see that farmers are having crops rot in the fields. Not a good thing. Having a sensible worker program where they do the work and leave, and come back next harvest, is a good thing. In the USA, we will either fix this or start importing a lot of food.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2856

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Here in France the Council of Restaurants and Caterers have just demanded the government speed up regularization of illegal immigrants because they need the workforce. The reason being: no sane French citizen would accept to work long and hard hours for the ridiculous wages they're offer.

So sure, let's regularize the illegals instead of forcing said council to raise the wages. After all, the Big Guy needs money.
What if the council raises wages and no French citizen will do the work for a wage that won't drive the business under? Serious question.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2857

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:52 pm
What good would it do? Nobody other than the south-of-the-border people will do the work for anything remotely profitable. He wouldn't take a pay cut, he'd be out of business. He only employs legal workers, but right now there is a labor shortage in the USA. Wages though, are not significantly rising, odd that. But if you read the articles I linked in my reply to Matt, you'll see that farmers are having crops rot in the fields. Not a good thing. Having a sensible worker program where they do the work and leave, and come back next harvest, is a good thing. In the USA, we will either fix this or start importing a lot of food.
Interestingly, that's what we do in France every year for the vendanges. And it works.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2858

Post by SM1957 »

So people in the USA are paid too much to grow certain crops, and the USA might have to start importing food.

This is called 'comparative advantage' or why Ringo played drums when he was not the best drummer in the Beatles (actually, he was, but I hope you get the idea)

This is why we have free trade. So that countries with low wages can produce things countries with high wages want to buy. The solution is not to take low-paid countries and put all the people in high-paid countries.

The solution is for each country to do what it does best and then trade produce, goods and services.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2859

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Here in France the Council of Restaurants and Caterers have just demanded the government speed up regularization of illegal immigrants because they need the workforce. The reason being: no sane French citizen would accept to work long and hard hours for the ridiculous wages they're offer.

So sure, let's regularize the illegals instead of forcing said council to raise the wages. After all, the Big Guy needs money.
What if the council raises wages and no French citizen will do the work for a wage that won't drive the business under? Serious question.
It won't drive the business under. Restaurants make HUGE margins, especially here on the Côte d'Azur and in the Paris area. You'll have a hard time meeting a restaurant owner who has difficulties to make ends meet at the end of the month.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2860

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

There is a big difference between importing workers to fill a need and declaring the same workers full and legal citizens, or there should be. I mean, we could start declaring price controls and heavily regulating the marketplace. I can't think of a place that's been tried and it's had a remotely happy ending.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2861

Post by SM1957 »

And while we are at it, people should realise that California is a desert and stop trying to produce rice there.

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2862

Post by piginthecity »

Brive1987 wrote:
As you know I was a passive observer of Hatefacts (no direct responses to arguments or re-quoting on the Pit) , their value to me was as a measure by which to access the feeble left-Pit push back.

The 'pit is not Atheism plus.

It's not supposed to be a sacred space where we decide the one true way and heretics are exiled. There are bad ideas expressed here just as everywhere else and there probably have always been bad ideas expressed here. It's fine. It doesn't bother me and I'm not under any obligation to enact the labour. There's no need to push back in an internet backwater. In fact, it's actually a good thing to use a place like the pit as a sort of barometer. You can keep tabs on the current forms of the bad ideas just by seeing what pops up here rather than by going and looking. Okay, probably that's a bit lazy but there you go.

Maybe the wall-o-texters with all their graphs and statistics do convert some people. I don't know, but I don't think they have as much impact as they think they do. If HateFacts had been real he wouldn't have been doing any actual harm over here. Except wearing out my scroll wheel a bit.

That said - I am a bit disappointed, not by the reaction to one individual, real or fake, so much as more generally, by the support or blind-eye turning to Trump and his potentially disastrous climate change denialism and policies enacted on this basis. This is because the pit derives from a science blog and originates from people who were first motivated by opposing politically driven anti-science agendas. It's a 180 from the pit's original purpose when newcomers come here and assume that half of us receptive to anti-science ideas.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2863

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Here in France the Council of Restaurants and Caterers have just demanded the government speed up regularization of illegal immigrants because they need the workforce. The reason being: no sane French citizen would accept to work long and hard hours for the ridiculous wages they're offer.

So sure, let's regularize the illegals instead of forcing said council to raise the wages. After all, the Big Guy needs money.
What if the council raises wages and no French citizen will do the work for a wage that won't drive the business under? Serious question.
It won't drive the business under. Restaurants make HUGE margins, especially here on the Côte d'Azur and in the Paris area. You'll have a hard time meeting a restaurant owner who has difficulties to make ends meet at the end of the month.
Restaurants here have razor-thin margins. Most go under before a year is out. Again, I'm not an economist, I'm a shit-poster. But I know people, farmers, restaurant owners and even both legal and illegal immigrants. I'm starting to become involved enough in politics to see under the hood. My posts are American-centric because that's what I know, and sometimes I extrapolate that to other nations with limited knowledge. But I see the power of the markets and the perils of trying to mess with them too much. It's made me a firm believer in capatalism.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2864

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

SM1957 wrote: And while we are at it, people should realise that California is a desert and stop trying to produce rice there.
California feeds America and parts of the world besides. It will stop when it is unprofitable, not a moment before.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2865

Post by MarcusAu »

piginthecity wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
As you know I was a passive observer of Hatefacts (no direct responses to arguments or re-quoting on the Pit) , their value to me was as a measure by which to access the feeble left-Pit push back.

The 'pit is not Atheism plus.

It's not supposed to be a sacred space where we decide the one true way and heretics are exiled. There are bad ideas expressed here just as everywhere else and there probably have always been bad ideas expressed here. It's fine. It doesn't bother me and I'm not under any obligation to enact the labour. There's no need to push back in an internet backwater. In fact, it's actually a good thing to use a place like the pit as a sort of barometer. You can keep tabs on the current forms of the bad ideas just by seeing what pops up here rather than by going and looking. Okay, probably that's a bit lazy but there you go.

Maybe the wall-o-texters with all their graphs and statistics do convert some people. I don't know, but I don't think they have as much impact as they think they do. If HateFacts had been real he wouldn't have been doing any actual harm over here. Except wearing out my scroll wheel a bit.

That said - I am a bit disappointed, not by the reaction to one individual, real or fake, so much as more generally, by the support or blind-eye turning to Trump and his potentially disastrous climate change denialism and policies enacted on this basis. This is because the pit derives from a science blog and originates from people who were first motivated by opposing politically driven anti-science agendas. It's a 180 from the pit's original purpose when newcomers come here and assume that half of us receptive to anti-science ideas.
Things seem purely political* - which is to say tribal.


* Or near enough (to give myself an out).

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2866

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

piginthecity wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
As you know I was a passive observer of Hatefacts (no direct responses to arguments or re-quoting on the Pit) , their value to me was as a measure by which to access the feeble left-Pit push back.

The 'pit is not Atheism plus.

It's not supposed to be a sacred space where we decide the one true way and heretics are exiled. There are bad ideas expressed here just as everywhere else and there probably have always been bad ideas expressed here. It's fine. It doesn't bother me and I'm not under any obligation to enact the labour. There's no need to push back in an internet backwater. In fact, it's actually a good thing to use a place like the pit as a sort of barometer. You can keep tabs on the current forms of the bad ideas just by seeing what pops up here rather than by going and looking. Okay, probably that's a bit lazy but there you go.

Maybe the wall-o-texters with all their graphs and statistics do convert some people. I don't know, but I don't think they have as much impact as they think they do. If HateFacts had been real he wouldn't have been doing any actual harm over here. Except wearing out my scroll wheel a bit.

That said - I am a bit disappointed, not by the reaction to one individual, real or fake, so much as more generally, by the support or blind-eye turning to Trump and his potentially disastrous climate change denialism and policies enacted on this basis. This is because the pit derives from a science blog and originates from people who were first motivated by opposing politically driven anti-science agendas. It's a 180 from the pit's original purpose when newcomers come here and assume that half of us receptive to anti-science ideas.
All things Trump have their own thread. It could use some new life.
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=514&start

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2867

Post by Brive1987 »

Admirable multi tasking


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2868

Post by Brive1987 »

MarcusAu wrote:
Guest_b8931fdb wrote: http.s://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1026956673250820096
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsqRZDff2C0
Gay frogs first 40sec. :lol:

Then Nazi.


KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2869

Post by KiwiInOz »

piginthecity wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
As you know I was a passive observer of Hatefacts (no direct responses to arguments or re-quoting on the Pit) , their value to me was as a measure by which to access the feeble left-Pit push back.

The 'pit is not Atheism plus.

It's not supposed to be a sacred space where we decide the one true way and heretics are exiled. There are bad ideas expressed here just as everywhere else and there probably have always been bad ideas expressed here. It's fine. It doesn't bother me and I'm not under any obligation to enact the labour. There's no need to push back in an internet backwater. In fact, it's actually a good thing to use a place like the pit as a sort of barometer. You can keep tabs on the current forms of the bad ideas just by seeing what pops up here rather than by going and looking. Okay, probably that's a bit lazy but there you go.

Maybe the wall-o-texters with all their graphs and statistics do convert some people. I don't know, but I don't think they have as much impact as they think they do. If HateFacts had been real he wouldn't have been doing any actual harm over here. Except wearing out my scroll wheel a bit.

That said - I am a bit disappointed, not by the reaction to one individual, real or fake, so much as more generally, by the support or blind-eye turning to Trump and his potentially disastrous climate change denialism and policies enacted on this basis. This is because the pit derives from a science blog and originates from people who were first motivated by opposing politically driven anti-science agendas. It's a 180 from the pit's original purpose when newcomers come here and assume that half of us receptive to anti-science ideas.
My thoughts exactly. Are you sure that you are not my sock? Or that I am not your sock?

Trumps anti-evidence based policy does not serve the US citizenry, rather it seeks to entrench the power and wealth of the plutocrats. E.g. https://reneweconomy.com.au/eight-ridic ... ght-33515/

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2870

Post by shoutinghorse »

The 'women's right' to wear what she wants has been the talking point among Britain's intelligentsia at the moment after former Home Secretary Boris Johnson told the old joke about Muslim women wearing the Burqa looking like post boxes. Calls for him to "apologise" for his dreadfully offensive remarks abound from the usual suspects of course.


Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2871

Post by Kirbmarc »

shoutinghorse wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:49 am
The 'women's right' to wear what she wants has been the talking point among Britain's intelligentsia at the moment after former Home Secretary Boris Johnson told the old joke about Muslim women wearing the Burqa looking like post boxes. Calls for him to "apologise" for his dreadfully offensive remarks abound from the usual suspects of course.

Burquas make women look like dustbins, it's the niqab that makes them look like post boxes. :bjarte:

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2872

Post by KiwiInOz »

Kirbmarc wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:49 am
The 'women's right' to wear what she wants has been the talking point among Britain's intelligentsia at the moment after former Home Secretary Boris Johnson told the old joke about Muslim women wearing the Burqa looking like post boxes. Calls for him to "apologise" for his dreadfully offensive remarks abound from the usual suspects of course.

Burquas make women look like dustbins, it's the niqab that makes them look like post boxes. :bjarte:
Postboxes with a fly screen.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2873

Post by KiwiInOz »

Most common self-reported ancestry in the USA. These could be the basis for the new Ethno States of America.

https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aOr52WM_460s.jpg

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2874

Post by shoutinghorse »

Boris Johnson is of course the former Foreign Secretary not Home secretary .. :oops:

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2875

Post by KiwiInOz »

shoutinghorse wrote: Boris Johnson is of course the former Foreign Secretary not Home secretary .. :oops:
And he's a berk, not a burqa.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2876

Post by AndrewV69 »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:09 am
SM1957 wrote: And while we are at it, people should realise that California is a desert and stop trying to produce rice there.
California feeds America and parts of the world besides. It will stop when it is unprofitable, not a moment before.
Possibly after their aquifers are drained? Re: Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade
A vast majority of the world’s population lives in countries sourcing nearly all their staple crop imports from partners who deplete groundwater to produce these crops, highlighting risks for global food and water security. Some countries, such as the USA, Mexico, Iran and China, are particularly exposed to these risks because they both produce and import food irrigated from rapidly depleting aquifers.
(I have a copy of the paper. DM me if you want a copy if you do not like, um, use this url)

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2877

Post by feathers »

Keating wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:55 pm
Exactly, Lsuoma. The alt-right completely goes away as a threat when culture and government sanction of white male bashing goes away.
Perhaps, but there may be more at play than that. A general (and not necessarily objective) perception that one's job and welfare are at stake may play into finding a general scapegoat, and Islamic immigrants and their western cronies are a higher profile target than, for example, the wily Chinese taking over our economy.

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2878

Post by shoutinghorse »

KiwiInOz wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote: Boris Johnson is of course the former Foreign Secretary not Home secretary .. :oops:
And he's a berk, not a burqa.
And quite possibly our next Prime Minister.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2879

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:49 am
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Snip
That would depend on how you defined he boundaries of the alt-right and alt-lite, and that usually seems to depend on one's motives in defining them. Of course there is a spectrum, but the one end of the spectrum is no more linked to the other end of the spectrum than if there were 2 discrete groups.
My reasons for defining them are simple; I'm honestly not certain of the differences, other than one end seems more extreme than the other. Both seem to me to be an appeal to collectivism and for diminished individualism, which I generally oppose on principle.
What I meant was that the definitions are fluid as a matter of rhetorical expediency, so they don't shed much light in and of themselves. My impression is that the benign end of this spectrum are individualists who recognise the naivete of being completely ethnically blind. It is a difficult space to occupy which necessitates balancing liberal deals against practicality. What pace of cultural change is acceptable? How much diversity is allowable before the need to integrate is diminished? These are difficult questions to answer and it is near impossible to tackle these issues nowadays without acquiring a pipe-layer tag.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Fuck off, Jamie!

#2880

Post by MarcusAu »

shoutinghorse wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote: Boris Johnson is of course the former Foreign Secretary not Home secretary .. :oops:
And he's a berk, not a burqa.
And quite possibly our next Prime Minister.
Don't sell him short - he was born in New York - so he could be a future US President too.

Locked