View Poll Results: Is your country willing to make hard choices?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 33.33%
  • No

    20 66.67%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    If we continue the current trajectory I'd say our president will conclude that Asia and Africa do not exist, and are just conspiracies made up by the lizardmen as they go to play another round of golf with wealthy donors who have completely bought out the government.

    If we manage to hit full idiocracy, I hope I'm dead by then.
    Finland doesnt excist *just joined the ''finland-does-not-excist meme'' *
    ''With this attack, we have no choice but to protect our kind by unleashing our almighty weapon upon them. Summoning the Apocalypse'' - Stellaris Apocalypse trailer.

  2. #42
    The people of my country shouted "send them back" about natural born citizens because they happen to have brown skin. The average american would rather a desperate refugee die of thirst in the desert then allow them in.
    What have the years of your life taught you to be?

  3. #43
    You never saw the foam storm in China Szechuan province or the statistics about the plastic dumping from a few rivers in Africa and Asia.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...ust-10-rivers/

    Not a "white" issue but a greed issue kid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    Best thing about idiots calling for a culling is that it's always guys who want to kill Africans and their kids. While themselves being first world citizens damaging our planet more than a whole village in the bush does. If ever the time comes humans get murdered to save the planet it's us white fuckers who'll get the axe first.
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrandir View Post
    Idiot moderator makes stupid suggestion that will be ignored to genocidal racist.
    Odd, mods here are pro Trumps and/or white nationalists... I get temp ban every time I post pro-human knowledge...

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by ipaq View Post
    Odd, mods here are pro Trumps and/or white nationalists... I get temp ban every time I post pro-human knowledge...
    I suppose you have to be that dumb to volunteer to be an unpaid moderator.

  5. #45
    Herald of the Titans Katie N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Posts
    2,617
    Nobody would flee here.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Pretty much this.

    I think as conflict goes up and generel wealth goes down, things like "human decency" will only extend to people close to you.. family, etc... refugees and the like will be seen as putting stress on an already stressed - and that that point broken - system.
    Imagine being packed into a concrete jungle with thousands/millions of people that don't trust each other, don't have the same values, don't speak the same language, and don't wish to adapt to the people who were already there. Sounds like a nightmare.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Imagine being packed into a concrete jungle with thousands/millions of people that don't trust each other, don't have the same values, don't speak the same language, and don't wish to adapt to the people who were already there. Sounds like a nightmare.
    The same issue would happen in rural areas.

    Not only that, people would fan out to where the resources are, if the means to move those resources is eliminated. This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to sell fearmongering and xenophobia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Shh, you will get banned for mentioning it.
    Has he been banned yet?

    Anyway, yeah. The entire premise of this thread is poorly contrived bait to justify anti-immigrant sentiment, and by extension racism and ethnic superiority beliefs. It is postulating a future in which things somehow work fundamentally different then they do now, which is a very irrational position in the first place. The idea that nations are routinely destroyed by immigrant hordes is a common one in White Nationalist fan-fiction, but strangely absent from the historical record.
    This actually isn't the narrative I've seen, although I'd have to wonder where you're reading this and why you read it so often. I've never seen any racist claim that nations are "routinely destroyed by immigrant hordes". They usually focus on national solidarity and population growth rates in modern immigration.

    In fact, history shows quite the opposite, countries that are attracting large numbers of opportunistic immigrants are typically flourishing, and the waves of cheap labor and new talent feed that surge of prosperity.
    Under the neoliberal paradigm, borderline slave-labor is encouraged and negative externalities like the decay of cultural cohesion is ignored. The phrasing of your first sentence should tell you everything. The countries that attract immigrants are already flourishing. Large amounts of immigrants cause cultural divisions by its nature - they are people from different cultures and supplant the natives with their own. Can you show any cases in the historical literature where mass immigration from Africa, the Middle East, or South America made the country better off?

    They like painting some bleak future where these dangerous foreigners must be turned away for the good of society, but they already want to do that, when these conditions do not exist. They are contriving a scenario to fit their agenda, and it still doesn't make sense. Even in crisis we are going to want the additional brain and muscle power that comes with immigration.
    To me it's all about the source of the immigrants and the characteristics they've already shown (i.e. going off the evidence). Typically West European and East Asian immigrants provide more economic/brain power with other countries scoring lower if not ending up below the net benefit line. In the context of climate change, we could expect many from Africa to flee. If you're talking about them - the IQ scores of various African countries are what, on average? If you have another measure of a country's brain power, provide it as a counterargument. Otherwise the claim that brain power comes with [any and all]immigration is unfounded. Alternatively we could measure 'starting a new successful business' . In most cases you're placing the argument in the opposite order, as often entrepreneurs are immigrants, but this connection is made due to selection bias. People who are entrepreneurial want to go to new countries, start a new business, etc. Most people aren't like that, and the cause of the immigration in question does not line up with anything typically seen in history matching the pro-immigrant literature.

    In the future (even as it is) with automation, just having more bodies on the supply line isn't really what runs the economy; innovation, efficiency, and sustainability is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The same issue would happen in rural areas.

    Not only that, people would fan out to where the resources are, if the means to move those resources is eliminated. .
    It would be much more destructive to rural areas. Those communities are high-trust and highly homogeneous, built on common values and solidarity. A massive influx of foreign colonists would destroy that (which I assume is what you are okay with).

    This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to sell fearmongering and xenophobia
    Where's the evidence that there's absolutely nothing to fear? (I'm talking about your use of "nothing more than").

  9. #49
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    15,361
    Unrealistic to expect any nation to take in all refugees that sentiment and despite fear mongering attempts of the alt right aka the stupid branch of the right wing politics.
    Has no actual political platform large enough to carry it on, even on the left side the sentiment to aid them is there till you tell them a refugee center ends up in -their town- and that sympathy is all but gone. We are also preventing this from happening by financing regimes in African nations that terrorize people through violence from rape to torture to murder, that's the inconvenient truth people don't like to know.

    What impact refugees have on communities is something in the middle of what both sides are saying. I am however completely opposed to opening up refugee centers in small towns, that is just a bad idea on so many levels.

    Regarding your bonus question, the world as a whole is already looking at CO2 emissions differently as in ranking what is produce in a development country and what is produced in a developed country differently.

    Also India an China arent the prime agents of climate change, the western world are the ones who have been producing tons of emissions for decades. That's why these other nations find it unfair that they are held to the same standard now not the standard of when the countries were growing their industries.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Has he been banned yet?



    This actually isn't the narrative I've seen, although I'd have to wonder where you're reading this and why you read it so often. I've never seen any racist claim that nations are "routinely destroyed by immigrant hordes". They usually focus on national solidarity and population growth rates in modern immigration.



    Under the neoliberal paradigm, borderline slave-labor is encouraged and negative externalities like the decay of cultural cohesion is ignored. The phrasing of your first sentence should tell you everything. The countries that attract immigrants are already flourishing. Large amounts of immigrants cause cultural divisions by its nature - they are people from different cultures and supplant the natives with their own. Can you show any cases in the historical literature where mass immigration from Africa, the Middle East, or South America made the country better off?



    To me it's all about the source of the immigrants and the characteristics they've already shown (i.e. going off the evidence). Typically West European and East Asian immigrants provide more economic/brain power with other countries scoring lower if not ending up below the net benefit line. In the context of climate change, we could expect many from Africa to flee. If you're talking about them - the IQ scores of various African countries are what, on average? If you have another measure of a country's brain power, provide it as a counterargument. Otherwise the claim that brain power comes with [any and all]immigration is unfounded. Alternatively we could measure 'starting a new successful business' . In most cases you're placing the argument in the opposite order, as often entrepreneurs are immigrants, but this connection is made due to selection bias. People who are entrepreneurial want to go to new countries, start a new business, etc. Most people aren't like that, and the cause of the immigration in question does not line up with anything typically seen in history matching the pro-immigrant literature.

    In the future (even as it is) with automation, just having more bodies on the supply line isn't really what runs the economy; innovation, efficiency, and sustainability is.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It would be much more destructive to rural areas. Those communities are high-trust and highly homogeneous, built on common values and solidarity. A massive influx of foreign colonists would destroy that (which I assume is what you are okay with).



    Where's the evidence that there's absolutely nothing to fear? (I'm talking about your use of "nothing more than").
    And in the case of such a catastrophic event, all of that goes out the window. That "homogenization" and the fear of losing it is racism, it is xenophobia.

    You are making my case for me, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post

    To me it's all about the source of the immigrants and the characteristics they've already shown (i.e. going off the evidence). Typically West European and East Asian immigrants provide more economic/brain power with other countries scoring lower if not ending up below the net benefit line. In the context of climate change, we could expect many from Africa to flee. If you're talking about them - the IQ scores of various African countries are what, on average? If you have another measure of a country's brain power, provide it as a counterargument. Otherwise the claim that brain power comes with [any and all]immigration is unfounded. Alternatively we could measure 'starting a new successful business' . In most cases you're placing the argument in the opposite order, as often entrepreneurs are immigrants, but this connection is made due to selection bias. People who are entrepreneurial want to go to new countries, start a new business, etc. Most people aren't like that, and the cause of the immigration in question does not line up with anything typically seen in history matching the pro-immigrant literature.

    Where's the evidence that there's absolutely nothing to fear? (I'm talking about your use of "nothing more than").
    First off, IQ as it is usually tested, is not really the best indicator for intelligence. It's a measure made by West Europeans for West Europeans. There is a bit of a debate as to how adequate it really is to measure the intelligence of people who have different ways of thinking, a different culture, etc. It's not a good idea to just apply it to everyone.

    Besides, for economic immigrants, current systems look more at the educational background than IQ scores anyway. That is by and large why immigrants from countries that have stronger educational systems are preferred. However, that also means that especially young migrants can often be brought up to the level of others by the receiving state by giving them a better education and living standards that are more conductive to learning. My country actively sought immigration of low-skilled labour for decades and is still doing fine overall. If not those immigrants, their children did receive a good enough education to become more valuable economically. Sure, there are always issues with integration, but even according to the IQ averages you seem to like, we are still among the top performers.
    Usually, the country of origin is not as important for immigration as the integration policies of the receiving country. People can adapt. People can improve on themselves if given the opportunity - but they can also stagnate if they are not.

    Of course, the origin is also important, as it can cause issues for integration. However, I think it would not be adequate to focus entirely on that. Two immigration waves from the same country can have completely different outcomes depending on the reception. Accepting immigrants in an orderly fashion with help can be a boon, begrudgingly accepting refugees and dumping them in ghettos can bring you down. That's why a categorical stances on immigration can be self-perpetuating and, incidentally, hard to understand from an outside perspective. It also means that historical examples have to be scrutinized on both ends. Did an immigration wave for country X from country Y cause issues because of something inherent to the people of X, or was it because of how Y handled it? It's a very complicated topic, probably too heavy to properly deal with on a forum like this one. It's probably a myriad of factors, really.

    I still stick to the stance I had when writing my last term paper on the topic: Any absolute stance of immigration is foolish. It's neither always bad, nor always good. But I do believe that, if handled correctly, any wave of immigration can have positive impacts.
    The problem is usually getting the political capital to achieve that. It would be true for the topic of this thread as well. A massive immigration wave due to large swathes of Africa becoming inhabitable could probably be handled by the international community with concerted effort. It would probably require taking action before the situation grows too dire, but it's probably possible if everyone capable pitched in. But that kind of political capital just isn't there. Heck, we can't even agree that the underlying potential problem even exists, so there's no chance we will be able to properly handle the fallout.

  12. #52
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Imagine being packed into a concrete jungle with thousands/millions of people that don't trust each other, don't have the same values, don't speak the same language, and don't wish to adapt to the people who were already there. Sounds like a nightmare.
    When I look at the current voting-behaviour it seems I already live in a concrete jungle with millions of people I cannot trust, that do not share my values and who don't want to adapt to an ever-changing world.

    It's not refugees who have no place here, it's the far right.
    We've waged the worst war in history ever to get rid of these people. It's unbelievable that they are being allowed to return.

  13. #53
    Herald of the Titans Katie N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiri View Post
    First off, IQ as it is usually tested, is not really the best indicator for intelligence. It's a measure made by West Europeans for West Europeans.
    If it was made for them, shouldn't they excel at it and not others be at top?
    Last edited by Katie N; 2019-12-08 at 05:05 PM.

  14. #54
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Katie N View Post
    If it was made for them, shouldn't they excel at it and not others be at top?
    No, not really?

    The goal with IQ isn't to "beat the world", it's to develop something that works for us.
    Our entire education system is catered towards it.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Katie N View Post
    If it was made for them, shouldn't they excel at it and not others be at top?
    Probably because they both have similar ways of thinking with regards to what IQ tests are looking for. Plus, the level of development in a country also plays a role, since most of the high scorers are also among the more developed countries. Naturally, that has a bit of a correlation-causation issue as well. But if you look at what those tests ask for, some things become easily apparent.
    For example, a large part of IQ tests, especially standardized ones, put quite a bit of emphasis on math. While that does make some sense, since math is fairly universal in language and is used everywhere. But that also means that children growing up in more math-heavy environments will score better in those parts, along with those who already experienced more or better education in that regard. A kid growing up in a big city will probably have a better grasp at math than one living in a poor, rural area, where knowledge of plants might be much more important. We do not have yet have tests that really only test 'intelligence', while being agnostic to 'knowledge'.
    That poses a bit of an issue if you want intelligence to more or less represent the capacity for knowledge. At least once you start making world-wide comparisons. If you just want to make comparisons between developed countries? It is usually fine. We value stuff like math highly and see it as a mark of intelligence, so that isn't too bad. Still tests for something that is of great interest, after all. The issue really is only when we then try to use that measure on people who have - or often, have to - think differently, have different priorities and values, then circle back and say they don't have the potential.

    Basically, just because a test is designed for Europeans doesn't mean it won't work for others as well. But it also doesn't mean that it is automatically a good test for everyone.

    Though I reckon this is veering a bit off-topic, so I rather cut the post short.

  16. #56
    There aren't going to be climate refugees.

  17. #57
    Scarab Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    4,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    https://ourworldindata.org/renewable...rgy-investment

    The entire page is a good source of information. China invests more than Europe and US combined, and we didn't even include India.
    There is a guilt part of the equation

    The consumer that ends up consuming is the only reason anything is produced and if it was not there would be no CO2

    Which means the chart that should be made should be based on where the goods are consumed.. because Europe and North America consume a lot of those goods produced in China and India making Europe and North America responsible for it happening

    At least imo

  18. #58
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,208
    Of course not. If they did, we wouldn't see SUV sales flying. People are selfish, they'll do what they can to mitigate impact on themselves, and everyone else can go fuck themselves.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuiking View Post
    Finland doesnt excist *just joined the ''finland-does-not-excist meme'' *
    True, we do not exist.

    Also, if you are from russia or another hostile country, a non-existing finn is exactly what you don't want to fight against.

    On topic, I'd say more countries will turn to REASONABLE immigration over the bullshit that happened in 2015. If both germany and sweden are already abandoning the "open borders for all" policy, there is good chance we will never see a similar surge as back then. If one threatens, it can be combated. Looking at you, turkey. You are in dire need of a good ass kicking, tbh.
    "It's just like I always said! You can do battle with strength, you can do battle with wits, but no weapon can beat a great pair of tits!"

  20. #60
    Asia/Africa? This is more a problem for Europa. We here in the US will need to be dealing with S. America. Mexico is somewhat starting to get it's shit together and will eventually block it's southern borders for it's own well being i'm sure which fill provide a filter/barrier from them reaching El Norte.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •