3 ms·

But well, immigration has to only increase. Many of the problems of the West are due to insufficient immigration. And at the present time, we don't even care mu

But well, immigration has to only increase. Many of the problems of the West are due to insufficient immigration. And at the present time, we don't even care much about quality. We need just "bodies": whoever is willing to come, ideally those who are likely to have lots of children (although their birthrate falls dramatically once in). Because a generation down the road, those people will run out and countries will be competing hard to get ANYONE in.

jvmboi81 2y ago
[flagged]
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Huh? Who said anything about ethnically and culturally uniform? In the US I’ve never heard this narrative from major candidates or seen it in their policy proposals from the democrats Rhetoric is always about respecting the melting pot and letting cultural and ethnic differences co-exist under the great American experiment as it always has since its founding
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > Rhetoric is always about respecting the melting pot That is the uniform culture. You see it in tv shows everywhere, people looking the same in every show etc. (the 1 black, 1 white woman 1 white man 1 Hispanic 1 Asian group you see everywhere in American stuff) There used to be shows like Friends and Fresh Prince which means diversity, now everything is just the gruel of the melting pot.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      The general melting pot of cultures goes back over a century in this country. It’s been a cornerstone of US idealism for a long time. It does rest that cultures will become homogeneous over time as they melt together but I take what is being asserted to be different from that, as in it’s promoting an artificial uniformity of culture rather a naturally blended one
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > as in it’s promoting an artificial uniformity of culture rather a naturally blended one Yeah, it feels like instead of enabling a diverse set of cultures to coexist they try to enforce a culture that has a diverse set of things in it.
        no_wizard 2y ago
        Which the rhetoric coming from Democrats doesn't match the assertion here. It was never about forcing diversity that I can find from any fielded candidate. Feelings being what they are, you can't really 'disprove' them per se, but this may be more of a reaction to media representations of diversity vs actual ideals
carlosjobim 2y ago
The dividing edge is if you believe a nation is a people or if a nation is a country. But if you believe a nation is a country - ie its geographical borders, then why does it even matter if people live there or not? Since we're already treating people like cattle ("we need bodies") to be moved around at will here, then we might as well make a comparison with a cattle farmer. If his cattle are not reproducing and thus are dying out, what sensible person would suggest that the solution is to get cattle from other farmers? When is it time to ask why his cattle is dying? Is it because they deserve it? Is it because the farmer needs the milk more than the calves? I personally want my people to survive and not join the scrolls of history on the long list of exterminated tribes. If we have to survive outside of our current geographical country in a different place, then that is preferable to extermination.
- anovikov 2y ago
  It is because they CAN. They never wanted to reproduce in the first place. And the reason isn't even the democracy or "rotten Western values" - they die off even faster in authoritarian, patriarchal Eastern countries, free and unfree alike. It's simply economic growth. Give me any way of "making people reproduce again" which isn't overtly dystopian-totalitarian and i will accept that promoting "as much immigration as possible, not letting in only known criminals" was a bad idea. Sure government can just start having babies for itself. That will be real cattle herding.

jvmboi81 2y ago

[flagged]

no_wizard 2y ago
Huh? Who said anything about ethnically and culturally uniform? In the US I’ve never heard this narrative from major candidates or seen it in their policy proposals from the democrats Rhetoric is always about respecting the melting pot and letting cultural and ethnic differences co-exist under the great American experiment as it always has since its founding
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Rhetoric is always about respecting the melting pot That is the uniform culture. You see it in tv shows everywhere, people looking the same in every show etc. (the 1 black, 1 white woman 1 white man 1 Hispanic 1 Asian group you see everywhere in American stuff) There used to be shows like Friends and Fresh Prince which means diversity, now everything is just the gruel of the melting pot.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    The general melting pot of cultures goes back over a century in this country. It’s been a cornerstone of US idealism for a long time. It does rest that cultures will become homogeneous over time as they melt together but I take what is being asserted to be different from that, as in it’s promoting an artificial uniformity of culture rather a naturally blended one
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > as in it’s promoting an artificial uniformity of culture rather a naturally blended one Yeah, it feels like instead of enabling a diverse set of cultures to coexist they try to enforce a culture that has a diverse set of things in it.
      - no_wizard 2y ago
        Which the rhetoric coming from Democrats doesn't match the assertion here. It was never about forcing diversity that I can find from any fielded candidate. Feelings being what they are, you can't really 'disprove' them per se, but this may be more of a reaction to media representations of diversity vs actual ideals

carlosjobim 2y ago

The dividing edge is if you believe a nation is a people or if a nation is a country. But if you believe a nation is a country - ie its geographical borders, then why does it even matter if people live there or not? Since we're already treating people like cattle ("we need bodies") to be moved around at will here, then we might as well make a comparison with a cattle farmer. If his cattle are not reproducing and thus are dying out, what sensible person would suggest that the solution is to get cattle from other farmers? When is it time to ask why his cattle is dying? Is it because they deserve it? Is it because the farmer needs the milk more than the calves? I personally want my people to survive and not join the scrolls of history on the long list of exterminated tribes. If we have to survive outside of our current geographical country in a different place, then that is preferable to extermination.

anovikov 2y ago
It is because they CAN. They never wanted to reproduce in the first place. And the reason isn't even the democracy or "rotten Western values" - they die off even faster in authoritarian, patriarchal Eastern countries, free and unfree alike. It's simply economic growth. Give me any way of "making people reproduce again" which isn't overtly dystopian-totalitarian and i will accept that promoting "as much immigration as possible, not letting in only known criminals" was a bad idea. Sure government can just start having babies for itself. That will be real cattle herding.