Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    dakru

    + friends - friends
    1,928 link karma
    234,162 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Canada raises 'concerns' over Israel's mass deportation plan for African migrants dakru 1 points ago in canada

    Do you think George Soros lobbies for open borders for Israel?

    George Soros has actually been funding the campaign against this very deportation plan, according to Netanyahu:

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu today identified Jewish billionaire George Soros as a patron of the widespread, orchestrated campaign against the government’s plan to deport African infiltrators. [https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/241539]

    [–] Canada raises 'concerns' over Israel's mass deportation plan for African migrants dakru 1 points ago in canada

    Thanks for the background on the situation in Israel, but to clarify, that's not intended as contradicting my point, right?

    [–] Half of Ontarians would vote for PCs in next election: poll | Toronto Star dakru 6 points ago * (lasted edited 6 hours ago) in canada

    Lol wanting a carbon tax is by no means conservative. Conservatives believe in allowing the private sector to handle the situation. Something like tax cut incentives would be a conservative policy not a tax increase.

    Adding a carbon tax and keeping all of the other taxes the same (thus increasing the tax burden) isn't very conservative, you're right.

    But adding a carbon tax and decreasing other taxes (essentially shifting around taxation, keeping the tax burden the same or even lowering it overall) is a conservative approach to climate change. It's a market-based solution to decreasing carbon emissions. It gives more flexibility to individuals and the private sector compared to introducing regulations telling them how much carbon they're allowed to emit, and how.

    [–] Canada raises 'concerns' over Israel's mass deportation plan for African migrants dakru 1 points ago in canada

    Oy vey goyim we cant take any refugees but you should take all the refugees. Multicultural society for thee and not me.

    Are Israeli politicians, particularly right-wing Israeli politicians, known for encouraging refugees and multiculturalism in the West? You're referring, I assume, to the fact that Jews in the West tend to lean left politically, but they're presumably not the same Jews setting this policy in Israel. Or do you have evidence to present that there's a widespread phenomenon of the same individuals supporting refugees and multiculturalism in the West but opposing them in Israel?

    If not, this is basically on the level of noticing that ethnic Chinese people in Canada tend to vote Conservative and thinking that there's a contradiction with the politics in China ("but I thought Chinese people were communists!").

    [–] MALCOLM: If Trudeau’s going to crack down on ‘fake news’, he needs to define the term dakru 3 points ago in canada

    You do know that the CTV reporter and the two "victims" are all friends right?

    Yes. There are some ethical problems with that. However, I don't see how that's in the same category as blatantly made up stories like "Pope Endorses Trump" from a completely made-up news organization.

    [–] MALCOLM: If Trudeau’s going to crack down on ‘fake news’, he needs to define the term dakru 6 points ago * (lasted edited a day ago) in canada

    We had a definition: sites that appear at first glance to be genuine news sites, but post stories that are completely fabricated So, CTV News?

    Referring to the Patrick Brown fiasco? At most, they engaged in shoddy reporting by, for example, failing to verify details of the accusation (like the accuser being in high school) that should have been easily verifiable. That deserves criticism, but it's not on the same level as completely fabricated stories like "Pope endorses Donald Trump" (especially when it from a completely made-up news organization).

    [–] Are B.C. health officials waking to gender factor in the opioid crisis? dakru 1 points ago in canada

    If you don't die you didn't commit suicide.. so saying it's 10x more common among men is a fair statement to make.

    I don't understand. All of those people died. Three times more men died than women. Where does 10x come from?

    [–] Trudeau wants next RCMP boss to be a woman or someone with experience on aboriginal file, sources say dakru 0 points ago in canada

    Why? Why do we think he's just trying to signal his virtue, and he doesn't actually believe (for whatever reason) that demographics should matter in hiring?

    [–] Are B.C. health officials waking to gender factor in the opioid crisis? dakru 16 points ago in canada

    Suicide is almost 10x more likely among men as well

    Men are three times more likely to kill themselves, not ten times more likely. An important issue, but let's not overstate it.

    In 2009 there were 3,890 suicides in Canada, a rate of 11.5 per 100,000 people. The suicide rate for males was three times higher than the rate for females (17.9 versus 5.3 per 100,000). [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm]

    [–] Trudeau wants next RCMP boss to be a woman or someone with experience on aboriginal file, sources say dakru -14 points ago in canada

    How DARE you mention level-headed advice over virtue signalling.

    Let's not over-use "virtue signalling". He believes that preferring a woman in this position is a good thing and will benefit the RCMP. He might be wrong on that (I think he is, since I'm uncomfortable with making people diversity hires) but being wrong doesn't mean he's somehow insincere and simply "virtue signalling".

    [–] Are white ethnostate advocates any different, ideologically, than people like from those from the previously linked VICE article, "WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM WHITE PEOPLE"? dakru 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    For the H1B visas, from what I understand, there's been a spike in "requests for evidence" (that someone foreign needs to be hired for the position). Is this what you're talking about? It makes sense given his preference for people to hire American (and his desire for immigration to decrease). Do you have any evidence that he's targeting them because of them being non-white? (Aside from just pointing out that they are predominantly non-white.)

    As for Spanish, I think your 1 in 5 figure is a little off (a source I found said 13%). In addition, most of those can speak English (an estimation based on this), not to mention the fact that the institutions (schools, employment, etc.) will be overwhelmingly English as well. Overall, it's pretty clear that having just English will get you much further in the U.S. than just Spanish, and so the fact that speaking Spanish wouldn't get you points isn't surprising and doesn't suggest race-based thinking to me.

    Equating those two concepts probably is though.

    I don't think I equated "white" with "skilled, educated, and English-speaking".

    I don't think he ever said a single thing about taking anything from the elites. He was pretty clearly talking about race.

    He clearly uses that language here, although in the context of Britain.

    Donald Trump spins a pretty similar story. In a speech Tuesday, he hailed the outcome of Britain's E.U. referendum. "Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders," he said, and then framed the outcome in partisan domestic terms. "I was on the right side of that issue -- with the people -- while Hillary, as always, stood with the elites, and both she and President Obama predicted that one wrong."

    In a quick searching I haven't found examples of that wording for the U.S., but I can find many examples of him railing against the "establishment" and the "swamp". Those are entirely clear villains he's mentioned that he wants to take the country back from. The idea that he's communicating that he wants to take the country back from non-whites is not near the top of the list of plausible interpretations for me.

    And again, even if my interpretation of the evidence of his intentions is wrong and deep down he cares about race in its own right (and not just other factors that correlate with race), I still think it would be wrong to say that he ran on "Let's keep nonwhites out of this country" and (even more inaccurately) passed a law saying that only whites could be Americans.

    [–] Are white ethnostate advocates any different, ideologically, than people like from those from the previously linked VICE article, "WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM WHITE PEOPLE"? dakru 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    I just wouldn't see someone proposing to change the immigration system to be more merit-based, putting more of a priority on people being skilled, educated, and speaking English, and think "there must be an ulterior motive there, I bet that's just a tactic to get more white people" (where whiteness is an end in itself, rather than something correlated with other desirable traits).

    Change "speaks English" to "speaks English or French" and that's basically the Canadian points system for immigration as I understand it (something that Sessions and Trump have both praised), and that's definitely not just a tactic to get more white people.

    I forgot to mention it, but his restrictions on H1B visas keep out most skilled Indian and Chinese immigrants. In strict terms, the closest correlation between who he keeps in and kicks out are racial, not merit based

    That fits pretty clearly into his "Buy American and Hire American" policy, and his attempts to decrease immigration overall. Preferring skilled immigrants over unskilled ones doesn't mean he can't prefer skilled natives over skilled immigrants.

    Many white people see "Merit" and here "white" because many whites are white supremacists, even if they don't realize it.

    White people are on average more likely to be skilled, educated, and speak English than the average person in the world is. No white supremacy necessary there.

    ... Are you serious?

    No, the billionaire who promptly went on to hire Rex Tillerson, Betsy Devoss, Wilbur Ross, Stephen Mnuchin, and Rex Tillerson is not taking it back from "the elites." Trump's cabinet it worse nearly $5B dollars and he himself claims to be worth $10B. He is not taking America back from the elites. Let's not kid ourselves here.

    I don't think he actually is taking anything back from the elites, but that was clearly a big part of his campaign. Do you disagree?

    [–] Are white ethnostate advocates any different, ideologically, than people like from those from the previously linked VICE article, "WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM WHITE PEOPLE"? dakru 5 points ago in FeMRADebates

    You're not addressing any argument I made. You're just looking the other way on every single racial correlation.

    Race obviously correlates with things other than physical appearance so you can always find one of those things to look at instead. That's not the big-brained approach that many think it is. Let's not engage in motivated reasoning here. Race is present at EVERY turn and to ignore it in all cases is willful ignorance.

    What am I being willfully ignorant about? Immigrants that are skilled, educated, speak English, and have other desirable qualities (like bringing investment money) are indeed more likely to be white than the average human being.

    Selecting for those qualities in your immigration program will probably result in a whiter immigrant intake than to the racial make-up of the world. (With a few caveats, like maybe white people are less likely to want to leave their existing country. You can welcome immigrants from Norway but what if they don't want to move to the U.S.?)

    So if you mean "he wants immigrants that are skilled, educated, and speak English, and those people happen to be disproportionately white, so he wants white immigrants" then sure. I didn't think that's what you meant though. I've been assuming you mean that he wants whiteness as an end in itself, and those other policies were just a means to the end of getting more white people. But I think that "skilled, educated, and speak English" are entirely plausible ends in themselves.

    It's a very small leap. Especially when you consider his less obvious rhetoric. Who do you think "Let's take our country back" means to take our country back from? When specifically was America great? Who are these "forgotten people" who's interests stopped being considered in American politics? Why is Elon Musk an example of American ingenuity?

    Take it back from the "elites" that he always talked about. America "was great" before globalization and the decline of manufacturing. The forgotten people are the people hurt by globalization and the decline of manufacturing.

    I don't know the Elon Musk reference so I'll have to look it up.

    [–] Are white ethnostate advocates any different, ideologically, than people like from those from the previously linked VICE article, "WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM WHITE PEOPLE"? dakru 3 points ago in FeMRADebates

    Why would it be political suicide if whites (70% of the electorate) are so supportive of it? Perhaps he didn't want to scare off non-whites, but they (particularly blacks) generally didn't vote for him anyway, and he had a lot more white votes to get. Whites went for him less strongly than any other racial group went for Clinton.

    Let's start with the obvious, not many whites would be kept out by a wall. Not many whites would be stopped by a Muslim ban, especially if it was the real Muslim ban we were promised rather than the politically possible one we got. Ending the diversity lottery speaks for itself. His merit based immigration proposal makes fluent English the biggest source of points, which limits it pretty much to white countries with only a small fraction of India making the cut. He then listed only nonwhite countries as shit holes that he doesn't want he people from, while bemoaning that we don't get immigrants from "places like Norway". He even went as far as to imply that Norwegians were more similar to us, despite the fact that race and racial heritage is about all we have in common with them. What more would you want to just see the obvious truth, which is that he wants a whiter nation?

    A wall makes illegal immigration and drug smuggling more difficult. A Muslim ban makes terrorism less likely (or at least many people believe it does). Merit-based immigration brings, well, immigrants with more merit on average. Immigrants from Norway will, similarly, tend to have more to offer (education, language, skills, investment, etc.) than immigrants from Haiti.

    All of these outcomes are common desires, and entirely plausible as explanations for advocating those policies. From the policies, there's no reason we must assume that he wants a "whiter nation", at least as a value in its own right.

    And even if he did deep down want a whiter nation, and people voted for someone who did deep down want a whiter nation, there's still a really big leap from that to saying that he campaigned on "let's keep nonwhites out of this country", let alone on passing a law saying that only whites can be Americans.

    [–] Er what is Cmv? dakru 1 points ago in PurplePillDebate

    "Change my view". Basically "debate me".

    [–] William Watson: How Maclean's clever 'wage gap' cover accidentally debunked the wage gap dakru 2 points ago in canada

    and since when are women teachers paid more than male teachers?

    I'm curious; why do you refer to "women teachers" but "male teachers"? If you want to avoid "female", then why not do the same for the other gender and say "men teachers"?

    [–] William Watson: How Maclean's clever 'wage gap' cover accidentally debunked the wage gap dakru 11 points ago in canada

    Or, the man is more likely to be promoted, meaning that more men end up in managerial positions that earn more. That’s where the argument of a legitimate pay gap is clearest, but he ignores it completely.

    That's not a pay gap or a wage gap, that's hiring discrimination (or rather promotion discrimination). Also wrong, but a different thing.

    [–] Are white ethnostate advocates any different, ideologically, than people like from those from the previously linked VICE article, "WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM WHITE PEOPLE"? dakru 4 points ago in FeMRADebates

    America is not a nation of immigrants. It's a nation of pioneers and settlers.

    Would you say that a greater percentage of the population today descends from "pioneers and settlers" than from immigrants?

    (Setting aside that I would have considered "immigrants" a broader term that includes pioneers and settlers, who would be defined as immigrants that made their life on the frontier instead of coming to existing settlements.)

    [–] Are white ethnostate advocates any different, ideologically, than people like from those from the previously linked VICE article, "WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM WHITE PEOPLE"? dakru 6 points ago in FeMRADebates

    I have various other concerns with this line of thinking, but one major concern is that it just seems so arbitrary.

    • What's the cutoff for how much a group has contributed/built the nation for them to be considered a legitimate part of it? And how are we evaluating this: contributions as part of the workforce, contributions in terms of political leadership, contributions to culture? Blacks have been a major part of the workforce, especially in the South, and they've made major contributions to American culture, especially music. Are those contributions enough to be among the builders of the U.S.?

    • How do we know what racial/ethnic categories to use? You talk about the contribution of Northern and Western Europeans. Why not separate it further into English/French/German/Dutch/Irish and so on? Maybe the Germans contributed enough but the Dutch didn't. Or you could go larger and treat Europeans as one group, and allow Slavs, Southern Europeans, etc., as the alt-right does.

    • Do we focus on any particular time period for contributions? That'll matter a lot because some groups came later (not many Italians were at the founding of the U.S., but they've been a big part of the U.S. population for at least a century now).

    • Should there be any special consideration to groups largely brought to the U.S. against their will as slaves?

    • Why should the past contributions of groups determine who's allowed to come in and contribute in the future?

    You don't have to answer all of these to me right now. But I think you have to have answered these (at least to yourself) in the process of coming up with your position, because there are a lot of different choices we could have made here, and they could have come to some very different conclusions.