cfadvan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_submarines
That’s a long time to be essentially sending people to a watery grave (with a few limited successes) before materials and engineering technology caught up to the vision of submersibles.
How about what Snowden revealed? Torture after 9-11?
A little time passes and people get back to calling anyone who thinks that a militarize police force isn’t a good thing un-American and kooky.
It’s a great series, but it’s not hard sci-fi, just a great storytelling mechanic.
So yes, the context I’m examining was very much on the table.
Deny
Accuse
Reverse Victim and Offender
It’s a playbook that’s as old as people, and sadly it works, especially when there’s a significant power asymmetry at play.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.
All of this is usually applied to narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths, but it works equally well for immoral corporations.
Just amazing. And this from a country full of people who can’t even pick out most other countries on a map, even the ones they’ve bombed. A country that apparently thinks some Palestinian, East Indian, Russian, Japanese, etc kid rapping along to a popular song is using “forbidden” words. I think Americans should worry less about their empty words, and more about their actions which the rest of the world judges them by.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think a lot of Americans are racist or not because of some words. I do think it’s a racist country because of their prison system, shooting and strangling unarmed black men, the systemic racial poverty, the Birther conspiracy, and who they go to war for and against. No amount of careful wording will change that.
The whole world doesn’t have to answer to the crimes of Americans, Western Europe, and West Africa. That’s (presumably) your baggage, not mine. By contrast my ancestors have a lot to answer for where Tatars are concerned, and yet you fellow “white” person, had nothing to do with it.
It also nailed the gig economy.
This is like saying that airships have a lot of issues because of the Hindenburg disaster. Technology has come a long way since either Chernobyl or Fukushima were built! Nuclear plants can be made very safe, and as a bonus won’t contribute to the deaths of millions from pollution.
Africa is a continent, India is a country. The cap isn’t based on diversity, but a country. The reason being the same as several people including myself have stated, namely so that one country doesn’t dominate at the direct expense of all others. Your personal demands based on what you personally want because it would advantage you aren’t how policies anywhere are made.
Given that, and given that your argument is neither consistent nor in good faith, I’m out. It’s clear that you don’t care about diversity or discrimination or anything else, you’re just all about personal advantage. That’s not an argument, it’s a form of bigotry.
@Jumpcrisscross: One can make similar arguments for the Crusades.
Then why not make that argument? Remember to put “Deus Vult” in that context.
Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well.
“Pretty much” is doing yeoman’s work there, bravo. I like how it also glosses over the fact that most of what happened was anti-money, anti-status, and anti-intellectual.
There's a difference between displacing the local population (which you imply) and moving somewhere there's better opportunities (jobs, housing, &etc). As long as there's no coercion or violence involved then who's the victim if my new neighbor is from Guatemala?
Sounds fine, but what happens in the scenarios I actually outlined in my first post? It’s not about displacement, but simple overwhelming numbers. Would Japan still be Japan if tens of millions of people from all around the world decided to live there? Would Albania still be Albania if a hundred million people from China and India showed up? If everyone in California were suddenly matched 3:1 by Sub-Saharan Africans, what happens?
In terms of language, culture, social services, law enforcement, etc... you’re suddenly in a whole new world. I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong for Japan, to use a precious example, to wish to remain Japanese in terms of their language and culture. I don’t think it’s wrong for Switzerland to balk at the notion of a hundred million Americans showing up either.
If you remove all restrictions, it’s not just about having a Guatemalan neighbor; that’s just immigration as it is today. The US for example has absorbed millions of Mexicans, Central and South Americans without any real problems. It is after all, a drop the proverbial bucket. The issue arises when it’s far more than that, order of magnitude more, and all at once.
What would happen to Guatemala if a sizeable chunk of the US, or China, India, or Africa immigrated there? It would implode, socially, financially, and its existing culture would be consumed. If everyone who wanted to live in Hawaii or Monaco could just move there, both places would be environmentally and economically trashed. Immigration is necessary and human, and there should be more of it in most cases than we see today. That doesn’t imply that total freedom of movement is workable or desirable either. I’d no more want to live in a country with no immigration limits, than I would in a country with no immigration; both would be broken.
In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.
That seems reasonable. You’re not being targeted, Tuvalu isn’t being advantaged, it’s just that there are a lot of Indian people. What’s the alternative? No one gets a chance until every Indian who wants in gets in? Remove all limits? How would that be more fair? You’d just shift one country’s overpopulation to another. If a billion people from various parts of Africa and Asia suddenly were able (and did) immigrate to the US, what would be the result? My guess is economic collapse and social upheaval, followed by people immigrating to the next “best” country with the same results, and so on and so on.
It seems to me you think that the highest population should entitle people to more opportunities. That’s better for the individual, because they get more chances, but it’s at the direct expense of lower populations. That’s not about fairness or being against discrimination, it’s just wanting what you want and fuck anyone else.