domain:questioner.substack.com
fribble
5m ago
The dissolution needs to be socially and economically destructive.
It used to be, for women. Good luck convincing women there's anything men will do to make it so for them.
Also divorce is only in the event of sexual immortality.
My grandmother divorced my grandfather because he was an irredeemable alcoholic who when he was home beat them. There may have been, and probably was, infidelity. But in the 50s she would have, and been expected to, look the other way.
As much as I love my husband, I would not have married him or had a child with him if the options available to me if he hurt our child were the options my grandmothers had. I would leave him in a heartbeat if he hurt our child, but likely be able to find a path through sexual immorality. He has expressed similar to me.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
6m ago
Does that apply to contractors?
Felagund
13m ago
I'd just like to note that this is a step back from your earlier position that Jesus's resurrection originated with Saul.
Edit: I'd also add the qualification that the Messiah is not supposed to die, etc., per the standard Jewish interpretations.
jeroboam
21m ago
I don’t know man. Italians who came over in 1910 were pretty damn assimilated by 1970. And black people in the north haven’t assimilated either despite centuries of opportunity.
Glassnoser
24m ago
Some people do want to live with them though.
Stellula
31m ago
Just want to endorse the second part of what you said. It’s probably some of my Catholicism leaking through here, but I am explicitly not a white nationalist. I am an “American nationalist”. We’re a Christian country, we like guns and big trucks and big tits and bikinis and apple pie and baseball and chicken wings and bigass rockets and we consider the moon our sovereign territory. We hate the government, are naturally suspicious of authority.
That has all led to the most prosperous, most badass nation on earth and if you want to be an American you can, but when you get here you need to assimilate, and part of that means having a near-contempt for the country you fled. I don’t want to hear you talking about your ex girlfriend old country for 3-4 generations.
Maybe that’s a good analogy. Imagine you meet a girl in an abusive relationship with a loser guy. You fall in love with her and help her move from the slums to a giant mansion on the coast.
Now imagine she refuses to be seen in public with you, goes to her exes house for holidays, and talks to you about having dual citizenship a polyamorous relationship with her ex, who she also keeps sending remittances money to. Now imagine she also wants to talk about your toxic masculinity (which saved her) and the problematic nature of your wealth.
Yeah no thanks. We’re down to marry the super models (Werner Von Braun), but not so much the cheating gold digger.
Jiro
33m ago
That's inherent in handling problems one at a time. Otherwise, it becomes "the rain is not important to getting wet because you need to get out of the pool first" and "the pool is not important to getting wet because you need to get out of the rain first", said to someone who is stuck in both of them at once.
If the student "isn't important" because the university, corporation, and government all leak, you could equally say that the university isn't important because the student, corporation, and government all leak. Then you can say that the corporation isn't important...
The effect is that every cause of the problem is "unimportant" because whichever one someone points to, you reply that that wouldn't solve the other causes. Of course it wouldn't. You have to solve them too, but you also have to start somewhere.
Felagund
44m ago
I think you're right that that wasn't sufficiently warranted by what he said there (though it was clear that @BurdensomeCount thought that from elsewhere). Mea culpa.
That said, I think the chance of inauthentic development is substantially decreased by the continued contact with the apostles, and the approbation of the Pauline position, as seen in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. You may want to qualify that, but it's clearly the case that they agreed with at least elements of what he's doing, and it seems that they sent him on his journeys.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
53m ago
The actual reason this doesn't happen is that the entire point of the H1B program is to depress wages/salaries of tech workers, and this would defeat the point.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
55m ago
consumer surplus generated by Microsoft products mostly ceasing to suck.
This is such a tremendous lie I can't take the rest of your post seriously. Was this meant as sarcasm or a joke?
orangecat
56m ago
being blatantly racist while the other is getting really pissed off and gloating about the superiority of immigrants.
So, both sides just being racist.
It's funny how that label only gets applied in one direction.
ResoluteRaven
1hr ago
Americans (of any non-indian ethnicity) lose the biological competition regardless of whether intermarriage occurs 100%, 50%, or 0%. Because Indian genes will still make up 99% of India if +200mil were dropped in America.
Why should it matter to us how many total Indians there are in the world? There could be two or three billion people on the subcontinent and they would still be living in miserable squalor and unable to influence global affairs. Countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have populations in the hundreds of millions and can be freely ignored or bullied by more powerful states a fraction of their size.
If this continues, the genes of that organism will go extinct. Their genes are reduced by half per iteration.
Given the fact that the urban areas where such people tend to live are fertility shredders, the proportion of Asian ancestry in their descendants will be lower than you might expect (cf. the mixed urban population of the Roman empire left hardly any genetic trace in modern Italians and yet they did leave behind many cultural and literary works of value).
Humans did not evolve to be cloned, they evolved to live in somewhat small bands where 3rd-4th degree cousin marriage was common.
That is true, and yet I am still different from a Papuan tribesman not simply by culture or upbringing, but because my ancestors underwent thousands of years of genetic pacification and adaptation to living in settled agricultural communities with higher population densities. The software may not yet be out of beta, but I have no desire to scrap it all and return to the jungle. Thankfully, there are no countries with millions of hunter-gatherers for mindkilled liberals to suggest we take in, but if there were I would oppose it in the strongest terms.
jake
1hr ago
/pol/ had the kill shot years ago. How are they good for us but not their home country?
If we answered that question truthfully we could have a serious discussion about exact numbers to allow, rather than having to "dance" around it with the sledgehammer of the elimination of all H-class Visas. We could say, biologically, there is a maximum and knowable quantity of immigration candidates from any given country with average standards of living below the West.
Then, if we were allowing more than that umber, we would know either our standards were slipping, or they were being gamed.
Europeans and certain other populations exhibit a high average level of civilized behavior, call that inclination h, following from g. Russia is very close to the US, in many ways more civilized, but I would still feel confident saying measured on the whole, Russia is one standard deviation below America in h value. One step of degradation below Russia is not India, so India must be at least two steps below Russia, which means it is no closer than three below the United States. In comparison, Iceland is probably one sigma above, and Japan two.
I think this is imprecise, that there are external factors to an extent, but there are such obvious differences looking from India, to the US, to Japan, that there's something intrinsic and gestalt that speaks broadly to the peoples, and that does feel close enough.
For an Indian immigrant to match, they would need come from a population at least 3 sigmas above India's average h. This rejects almost all Indians, from 1.4 billion to 1.9 million. It's less than that, though, because if you want to improve a country, you can't bring in people who are only average. So the actual line starts at 4 sigmas, and that reduces it to about 45,000.
I have no problem believing there are about 45,000 Indians who would contribute to the strength of America. It's math. Here's the problem, I would assume a minimum of half of those persons intend to live out their days as citizens of India, using their talents in their own country for their own gain. Also consider others in that population will have immigrated elsewhere, such as Europe. This means short of calamitous conditions wherein only America is a viable immigration target, we should have a soft cap of 20,000, to in no circumstances exceed the hard cap of 45,000.
We're well over that. In 2023 (Page 32) there were 279,386 H-1B issuances to Indian nationals. Ignore everything I just wrote, I know that number immediately as gross excess. The US isn't lacking, in anything, to the degree that it requires the importation of nearly 300,000 laborers from a single country. Especially when you remember, that's just the H-1B admissions.
Despite this, it is conceivable the number could exceed 45,000, but only if we instituted extremely strict requirements, ensured those requirements could not be gamed, abolished birthright citizenship including retroactive revocations, etc.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
1hr ago
Okay, if we add a bunch of Indians and have the best economy on the world, I (a white American with pre-revolutionary ancestry) win in many ways:
Actually, the most likely outcome from this kind of immigration project would involve none of those things. While "the economy" in abstract would doubtless be doing extremely well, you are not an abstraction of a human being. These kinds of immigration policies have, everywhere they have been implemented, boosted "the economy" while in many cases having detrimental effects on the outcomes of individual workers. In the world you're proposing your income would not have kept pace with the rates of inflation imposed by such huge migrations of people - the pressure on housing, food, education etc would be immense. Your income would actually be substantially lower in real terms, because you've just introduced hundreds of millions of competitors for your labour. Your physical security would actually be substantially impacted - just go look at what happens to crime rates in areas with high levels of immigration. Your kids wouldn't exist, because you'd be unable to achieve the financial security required for family formation (unless you just dropped out and moved to the trailer park).
A thriving economy puts more options on the table for the actual power elite who run things, and allows the people who run tech companies to drive down wages. What is good for "the economy" in abstract is very often bad for the people who actually live in it - human prosperity and flourishing is not particularly advanced by having a gigantic population of incompetent and low-human capital peasants whose consumption of food, medical services and housing pumps up the GDP while suppressing wages.
everything else American over a single immigrant like @BurdensomeCount as even "low human captital" is of greater value than negative human capital.
Sir, I demand satisfaction! Even if you think I am negative value to society (naturally I disagree) at the very least you must grant that the magnitude if not the sign of my contributions is leagues and bounds beyond that your average sub-Saharan African is capable of.
The average human being, even if they try their damnedest, is not capable of making a big impact on society either way, positive or negative (discounting of course banal crap like shooting the person they got minor beef with, but that doesn't count because even here they are merely channeling the destructive power of a far greater force than themselves); true perniciousness is firmly beyond their capabilities.
Even if you think I am a net negative (which is your prerogative) you must admit that the extent of my negativeness is extraordinary- that is, I am not like them in any way at all beyond the superficial.
EDIT: I must also add that the job I am working in at the moment is one that's completely borders agnostic. Functionally I'm already taking a job away from an American if you're the sort of person who thinks in those terms, except that right now the US is getting precisely $0 in taxes from me. Giving me a free green card (not that I'd accept it, US has very onerous tax policies on their worldwide income for permanent residents living anywhere in the world) and welcoming me to the US is basically free money for you with no downside.
SSCReader
1hr ago
You can just say "I don't want to live with you" and that is 100% good enough justification.
Sure, but then the equivalent person who says "I do want to live with you" has just as much weight. It's not an argument it's just might makes right basically. Which is fine, but it can be turned to support any cause. It's an argument agnostic tool.
SSCReader
1hr ago
African-Americans still haven't been assimilated after 300 years.
It certainly hasn't been tried for 300 years though, considering forced segregation, Jim Crow and the like, it's maybe 60 years tops. You have to want to assimilate but also you have to be allowed to assimilate.
There's also the suggestion that they did absorb much of the culture around them hence the similarities with white Borderer culture.
NickRiviera
1hr ago
Never ask a man his income, never ask a woman her weight, never ask a white supremacist the color of his girlfriend
anon_
1hr ago
Presumably a world in which people are not the majority of productivity is also one in which total fertility no longer really matters.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
the situation immediately following the vision
Small nitpick, but many timelines have these events almost ten years apart.
gentiles can exist, as gentiles, that is, not following the Jewish ceremonial law.
Right. Most of the debate is concerning what counts as "Jewish ceremonial law". Insert the many treatises.
CriticalDuty
1hr ago
In my own entirely unscientific personal experience, most Indian couples here in the Northeast tend to have one kid or none at all. It fits with the general trend of India's birthrate declining and the diaspora thus following the trend of their co-ethnics as well as the new society they're in. The birthrate is probably still at least somewhat higher than American tech workers, but I suspect that doesn't last a generation.
somethingsomething
1hr ago
No I consider Q Jesus' teachings, but it was placed into the bible from the Pauline school, and I don't think the way the holy spirit is referenced in Q has the kind of theological qualities that it does in the more explicitly Paul writings, it's more just used as a kind of addendum or exclamation mark, there's not much meaning in how it's used there and could be removed without changing the meaning of things.
Corinthians 15:35 (and a bit preceding it) goes over what I think are his unique ideas that I don't think the Jewish followers of Jesus really had in mind, and have that platonic quality. When he's talking about "glories" of things that is basically Platonic "ideal" versions of things.
I think that contrasts with James' "whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." I'm not totally familiar with all the evidence on what Jewish Jesus followers believed, I think there would be knowledge of Greek ideas and the traditional Jewish views of it not being much, but I don't see anything like passage of Paul in the above passage along with his certainty. I only find one passage in Q that seems anything like an afterlife heaven and that may have been phrased differently in Jesus' original words, referring to what I think most scholars understand that he believed in an earthly heaven that he would rule.
And sorry I meant James 2:10 which I think Paul very much disagrees with.
I feel like a certain part of the debate is circling around the conflation of 'high paid' roles, 'productive' roles and 'socially valuable' roles.
Agreed, as @Stellula suggests above there seems to be a semantic bait-and-switch going on. What's being sold is something like Operation Paperclip or the Rockefeller Foundation's Assistance to Refugee Scholars program that brought figures like Werner Von Braun, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Alexander Solzenhitzen to the US. What we're actually getting in practice, is a bunch of minimally competent third-worlders who are, to all appearances, contemptuous of Western norms/values, and more concerned with extracting value than producing it, and who's only observable contribution to the community is diluting the supply and thus lowering the wages of native-born code-monkeys, medical professionals, finance bros, Et Al.
I consider myself reasonably "Based and MAGA-Pilled" and I am totally onboard with the former, while being deeply opposed to the latter.
I'd sooner accept a 100 immigrants from Central America or Sub-Saharan Africa who sincerely love baseball, apple pie, and everything else American over a single immigrant like @BurdensomeCount as even "low human captital" is of greater value than negative human capital.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2hr ago
Americans (of any non-indian ethnicity) lose the biological competition regardless of whether intermarriage occurs 100%, 50%, or 0%. Because Indian genes will still make up 99% of India if +200mil were dropped in America. American genes simply reduce their prevalence (if admixed) or ability to proliferate (if no intermarriage occurs). It makes no sense to do this given what we know about our design: with instincts to form groups exclusively for the purposes of gene proliferation. Who would ever form a group that specifically reduces their reproductive success?
Is a person who has mixed-race children less biologically successful than one who has an equal number of children of the same race
If this continues, the genes of that organism will go extinct. Their genes are reduced by half per iteration.
the optimal outcome would be to field an army of clones rather than engaging in sexual reproduction at all
Humans did not evolve to be cloned, they evolved to live in somewhat small bands where 3rd-4th degree cousin marriage was common.
I get the impression that you and I agree on much and would get along quite well offline. That or we would bicker endlessly like siblings. ;-)
For my part, I have always been partial to Teddy Roosevelt's bit about "Hyphenated Americans".
More options
Context Copy link