Post a controversial opinion

I think there are far worse outcomes than living in a nation with restrictive immigration. If one takes climate change and resource limitation projections seriously, they has implications for political life. I believe immigration to most developed nations will become seriously restricted this century, especially once their own food security becomes threatened. Its not a matter of if, but when. And of course whether those restrictions occur under social governance that values the welfare of the least among citizens, or under corrupt authoritarian regimes with "winner takes all" values. The more aggrieved the average voter becomes with stagnating wages, diluted culture, or threats posed by unassimilated migrants, the more likely they'll cast their vote for the later.

The Left's rhetoric of a common humanity can't win this issue in the long run. Unlike other wedge issues the Right leverages (abortion & guns in the U.S.), the migrant concern will grow inexorably this century, especially in the EU, the destination of choice for the mid-east and subsaharan Africa. In the U.S., the Right will continue leverage this hot-button to eliminate our social safety nets, environmental protections, and human investment. Better for the Left to preempt this by pushing towards policies that will work, even later this century.

has have implications

Sanpaku, where do you live? Because in Denmark, the biggest party on the left has moved almost completely in the direction of the populist right on the question of immigration. And it doesn't work. It's almost as if right wing populism is based on something much more darker than fears about stagnated wages. And the populists are always willing to go farther.

if grantham's reading is accurate then surely there will be voices advocating some sort of neo-colonialism/more direct control to sort out all these failed states. if he's right about threats of climate & overpopulation then what does he suggest ppl in nigeria do beyond mitigation

always surprised when overpopulation guys fail to take one for the team

What countries need to take more immigrants? Where is more likely to take immigrants?

Japan is really resistant to it but maybe they'll need immigrants to help deal with their halfing population?

russia could do with some

wait, there are halflings in Japan?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a3/d1/2b/a3d12b67d7fd976f9a7d7535f07dcdde.jpg

Nobody gets James Brown except me.

Am I willing to say no to refugees to prevent a future of Trumps and LePens? Yes.

This is best on another thread but with respect fuck this binary reasoning forever.

I also think S Express had the best first three singles or any band ever.

What countries need to take more immigrants/

http://www.scotlandinfo.eu/images/feature/welcome-carter-bar.jpg

I think there are far worse outcomes than living in a nation with restrictive immigration. If one takes climate change and resource limitation projections seriously, they has implications for political life. I believe immigration to most developed nations will become seriously restricted this century, especially once their own food security becomes threatened. Its not a matter of if, but when. And of course whether those restrictions occur under social governance that values the welfare of the least among citizens, or under corrupt authoritarian regimes with "winner takes all" values. The more aggrieved the average voter becomes with stagnating wages, diluted culture, or threats posed by unassimilated migrants, the more likely they'll cast their vote for the later.

The Left's rhetoric of a common humanity can't win this issue in the long run. Unlike other wedge issues the Right leverages (abortion & guns in the U.S.), the migrant concern will grow inexorably this century, especially in the EU, the destination of choice for the mid-east and subsaharan Africa. In the U.S., the Right will continue leverage this hot-button to eliminate our social safety nets, environmental protections, and human investment. Better for the Left to preempt this by pushing towards policies that will work, even later this century.

― behavioral sink (Sanpaku), Tuesday, May 2, 2017 9:53 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's some shitass right-wing dictum, attributed to milton friedman but probably apocryphal, that says that you can't have a welfare state and mass immigration. id say conversely it's impossible to have a left-wing party based on solidarity that pushes for zero immigration. that party will inexorably attract a shit electorate, and become a garbage right-wing party in all other respects, not least because it is hard to control illegal immigration within a liberal framework (visa overstays are a huge source of illegal immigration, do we make foreigners carry ID cards and have police stop them?)

in any case we already have - in the u.s. and the uk, two countries which in very real senses are not substantively rocked by the issue of immigration outside of many of their inhabitants minds - going wild for anti-immigration and voting in governments that are destroying the supports the poorest autochthonous denizens rely on. if trump builds his wall and a neo-bernie posits single payer and free university but you get to keep the wall is he going to win?

Discussion of what Friedman said: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-milton-friedman-really-said.html

It seems that he more or less did say that you can't have open borders and a welfare state, although it was because he liked open borders and disliked welfare.

russia could do with some

Foreigners in the Russian workforce, as a percentage, are much higher than the UK (15% vs 10%) and they're actively pushing for more migrants. There was an interesting Bloomberg article about it recently.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-14/russia-s-alternative-universe-immigrants-welcome

tbqh, i think the long-term argument is not going to be about whether you do or do not have migration - it's an economic and social necessity - but the rights of migrants, which is where a lot of the Friedmanite thought comes in. I would expect a shift away from rhetoric on tightly-sealed borders towards the kind of position you have in the Gulf where it's relatively easy to obtain a right to work but citizenship and benefits are impossible and you can be kicked out despite having lived there for generations.

that seems worse than closed borders

I think that was pretty much the idea to begin with. Guest workers would come here, work as long as they were needed, then of course return home to their own countries. But that didn't happen.

To me, it's not that open borders are incompatible with welfare states. If every country was a welfare state, there would be no problem. Open borders are unworkable once you reach a certain level of global inequality, and we are probably way past that level. Problem is, though, that closed borders only raises the level where it's workable a bit, and then what? The only solution is to do something about global inequality, but... yeah...

lol, Strasserism isn't going to work. The ideal of common humanity sure feels like a tough sell right now, but it's the only game in town for the left. Give up on that and there's only really fatalistic acceptance of a future of fascism, caste system and mass death.

(I'm veering towards fatalistic acceptance lol wite d00d)

How is this for controversial: I'm still an optimist! The disaster was the crash in 2008, and we're still figuring out a way forward. Trumpism is failing, Bannonism is failing, the demographics are still pointing to a less white supremacist US, the story of France is centrism winning over conservatism + populist leftism winning over centrist leftism, and the rise of China still points to a less eurocentric world. Yeah, Britain is completely and utterly fucked, and for some reason the left keeps getting bogged down in internecine squabbles, but overall trends are fairly good. Until the oceans swallow us all, of course.

things are definitely getting worse in the world ask anyone from 1547

our generation faces the hardest life and worst threats to existence ever

the story of France is centrism winning over conservatism

bro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6L8rHyzQj0

x-post: They went from Chirac + Jospin in 2002 to Macron + Melenchon in 2017. Overall, the electorate moved a fair bit to the left. FN has only gained five percentage points in the last three elections, despite a cleaning up of the image, that included kicking her father out, and she seems to have stumbled badly in the campaign - though I'm saying this with an outsiders perception. There are all indications that a populist leftist candidate could overtake her as the preferred anti-centrist option, though again: Internecine squabbles...

our generation faces the hardest life and worst threats to existence ever

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-sometimes-i-even-cut-myself-to-see-how-much-it-bleeds-it-s-like-adrenaline-the-pain-eminem-57-2-0274.jpg

Yeah you bleed just to know you're alive

you think the Great Leap Forward was hard, we have people making fun of CNN on a daily basis

Tattoos are gross and off-putting.

I don't think they're gross but I don't see their point.

for in case you're waiting a long time for a bus and you get bored and wanna look at something

Contro-op: It could just be that a group in power is the most susceptible to corruption, but it's also possible that there's something deeply, fundamentally wrong with white people.

tattoos can be incredibly sexy and they can also be very gross

white people can be incredibly sexy and they can also be very gross

The Monsanto Years is the best Neil Young album since Psychedelic Pill

it shouldn't be against the law to drive without a seatbelt

also, open container laws make zero sense

fwiw I always wear a seatbelt, I just don't think it should be illegal to not wear one. also it sucks to be driving three blocks never exceeding 15mph and have your car ding at you the entire time

most of my controversial opinions involve motor vehicles for some reason

seatbelt laws are one of the greatest public health achievements of the past 40 years, wtf

seatbelts are the mandatory health insurance of cars, even at low speed impacts you're going to end up in the ER to get cautionary x-rays to make sure you didn't crack a rib and jacking up my car/health insurance rates

Yes, but that has nothing to do with any other driver or pedestrian; whether or not I am buckled up makes no difference whatsoever to anyone else, so eschewing the seatbelt would seem like a personal--if reckless--choice, like smoking.

fwiw I always wear a seatbelt, I just don't think it should be illegal to not wear one. also it sucks to be driving three blocks never exceeding 15mph and have your car ding at you the entire time

― Wimmels, Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:07 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this isn't post your self-owns

take that trip at 45 so it doesn't ding as long? idk

Yes, but that has nothing to do with any other driver or pedestrian

If I pull out, don't see you, and you run into me, your bruised ribs are on my insurance!

or what if some kid whips around the corner and slams into you going over thirty head-on, meaning you're going to experience 15mph of your body decelerating plus 30mph of the other car's momentum

Ralph Nader's book that spurned automobile safety features was literally titled Unsafe at Any Speed and your argument is "idk I'm going real slow"

if you are not wearing a seatbelt and are in a crash you can a: kill the person in front of you if you are indeed sitting behind someone by hitting the back of their headrest with your head at a great speed. b: go flying out of the car and presumably a human projectile has potential to injure others

spurred xp?

good typo catch

xp

If I pull out, don't see you, and you run into me, your bruised ribs are on my insurance!

― a landlocked exclave (mh), Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:41 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or what if some kid whips around the corner and slams into you going over thirty head-on, meaning you're going to experience 15mph of your body decelerating plus 30mph of the other car's momentum

Ralph Nader's book that spurned automobile safety features was literally titled Unsafe at Any Speed and your argument is "idk I'm going real slow"

― a landlocked exclave (mh), Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:43 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in both of these examples, though, the accident is your fault. again, not sure what my wearing or not wearing a seatbelt has to do with it if a kid is "whipping" around a corner at twice the speed limit, or you pull out and "don't see" me. I'm wearing a seatbelt to assuage your guilt for hurting me more than I might have been hurt if I was buckled? I don't see what that has to do with the law

if you are not wearing a seatbelt and are in a crash you can a: kill the person in front of you if you are indeed sitting behind someone by hitting the back of their headrest with your head at a great speed. b: go flying out of the car and presumably a human projectile has potential to injure others

― -_- (jim in vancouver), Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:46 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

exactly how often do you think this happens? serious question because I have no idea