realjhol

Then main branch story was utterly ludicrous. Imagine thinking that you were helping the world in any way by changing the name of a git branch

It must be election season. Like clockwork, the pro-censorship hit pieces start rolling out

I'm not hearing much argument for why I might be wrong, other than pearl clutching, tone policing and guilt by association

What isn't true? Is both the average and the variance of IQ in men/women identically equal? Why would we even expect it to be?

Is the likelihood of risk taking behaviour identically equal between men/women? Why would we even expect it to be?

Is the likelihood that a man/women will be identically equally interested in a career in the hard sciences? Why would we even expect it to be?

You have weird ideas about people.

Oh, did he write about this? Maybe I should check him out.

On that argument, you're advocating robbing the origin countries of the benefit of the children they invested in.

However all those migrants were basically a free source of human skill - i.e. another country poured their resources into nurturing and educating them, now the country they immigrate to gets to reap all the rewards.

A huge segment of the migrant flow comes with basically no skills, and is immediately dependant of the welfare system. The migration we are currently experiencing is a net negative for the UK

So the supply and demand economy of the housing market, how would the government reduce prices? Remember the indigenous population has sub-replacement level birthrates. Homes should be becoming more available not less- and they would be if the nations children were not being disinherited by the boomers

This is an article of faith on your part. None of the immigrants are relocating directly because of climate changes, and a minority are moving because they are refugees from an active war zone. Many are fighting age men, adventurers and opportunists.

Refugee laws were written a hundred years ago when there were frequent wars in Europe that would displace non-combattent women and children. They didn't have much option to go far beyond a neighbouring country and would likely go back home after the war was over.

Our current system of laws requires us to host any refugee or immigrant from anywhere in the world on a permanent basis.

There is no way this is sustainable economically, and much less so culturally.

The government could fix this instantly, but they choose not to.

Well a positive vision for the future would be some new ideological synthesis for Britain. It would involve remixing the good parts of 1950s thinking and learning the lessons from the things that have gone wrong in more recent decades.

For example, in the 1950s people would have been appalled by the idea of mass immigration. In 2023, it is at the root of many of the UK's most significant problems: the housing crisis, the collapsing NHS, the destruction of the high trust society, the shattering of British identity into dozens of cultural enclaves.

There is no honourable way to undo the mass immigration that has already happened. However, we can radically reduce it.

At the current immigration rate, it is simply impossible for the rate of cultural integration to keep pace with the the rate of influx. At vastly reduced rates of immigration, our society would have space amd time to forge a new British identity.

We have made choices that have proven themselves destructive, but it's not too late to revisit those mistakes, and then build anew from the ashes of the current decade.

No, you are confusing things together, because you believe in Whig Historiography.

In reality, most of the west is declining due to bad ideas and the rejection of good ideas that our people once held.

To return to ideas and traditions would not be to go back in time - noone can do that, rather to reinvent, to rejuvenate, and revive the good ideas of the past in the context of the present.

Nix. The solution is Nix

No.

So does literally everyone in the entire world

What do you even mean by that?

Their ideas are perfectly coherent and consistent within their own framing. Just because you look at the world through a different frame, doesn't mean that these people are saying things that are unreasonable

There is absolutely nothing about Greenwald, Taibbi, or Adams that is in any way unintelligible or irrational.

Good. How many more to go?

The ones who used to be willing to lay down their lives for honour and the love of their people and homeland, and who now see military service to the regime as futile and even self-defeating.

Yes. The US military used to have a defensive function toward western people, culture, morals and values.

Not any longer, which is one of the reasons why today there are many things which I am not free to criticise or satirise, and have to use anonymous public forums.

Why would anyone want to send their children to die in pointless wars of a regime that hates them and everything they stand for?

They ruin pretty much everything they get their grubby mits on, so yes why not

No

I once encountered a small C++ shared library that made heavy use of templates. One of the symbols was larger than the code section of the library.

One is that the COVID quarantine, while necessary for public safety

No. It didn't help in the slightest. See Sweden. See the Armish

Their mortality outcomes were far better than most of the rest of Europe

You will depend on today's children to uphold society and care for you in your old age, so asking you to contribute to their education is perfectly reasonable

Did you know the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't real?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-know/2020...

The argument is that corporate lawyers exist (mainly) to satisfy a demand generated by their own profession.

That would apply to any profession which involves competing in a zero sum game.

Zero-sum games exist, therefore these professions exist to enable players to win them

This ill-conceived essay is a big source of fuel for the march toward UBI