If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

The fact checkers are out in full force right now.

1. Schumer wasn't the only person to write the bill (just ignore that he was the first to introduce it)
2. He tried to repeal it in 2013 (just ignore that the terrorist entered in 2010)
3. Republicans supported the 1990 bill (just ignore that most of those same Republicans are the ones Trump doesn't like)
4. Republicans refused to vote for the 2013 repeal (just pretend that they did so because of their love for the diversity visa component)

And that doesn't even get into the nitty-gritty like whether or not Schumer himself specifically introduced the section eliminating the diversity visa component or if that was tacked on as part of some compromise.

Fuck I hate these people.

 

[arg]

If we just STOP actively giving out green cards to 3rd world shitholes

and STOP allowing chain migration of their whole fucking extended family,

it would solve so many social, economic and security problems.

It's so simple it boggles the mind. We don't have to do anything extra or make additional effort or expenditure. Just STOP doing what we're currently doing. Less effort, less expense, less welfare parasites, less foreign low skilled fucks stealing jobs from our low skilled fucks, less murderous terrorists, less government personnel needed so we can fire them, more freed up budget to use on more important things or better yet tax cuts.

 

[rms]

somewhat peculiar thing im noticing: are people willfully trying to alter the definition of terrorism to include more white random killers? (mostly in reference to LV dude vs. NYC truck dude)

and also: has any actor or actress's outing include a trip to their local PD?

 

[CiG]

Women will wait 217 years for pay gap to close, WEF says.



How long until the left understands economics though?

 

[CiG]

somewhat peculiar thing im noticing: are people willfully trying to alter the definition of terrorism to include more white random killers? (mostly in reference to LV dude vs. NYC truck dude)

Yeah this definitely seems to be going on.

 

[Einherjar86]

Women will wait 217 years for pay gap to close, WEF says.



How long until the left understands economics though?

What is funny to me about this video is that people assume that leftists don't understand the socioeconomic factors that Sowell is precisely bringing up:

a) that most blacks don't fall into the category of "stable family," and

b) that most single women in the workplace aren't "never married" (in other words, that the pay gap reflects spending time raising children).

The left does understand this, and objects to the underlying ideology which frowns upon women who don't want to marry and have children, because they're abdicating their responsibility as women, or some fucking bullshit.

In effect, Sowell has just exposed the contradiction at the heart of his argument: he claims that blacks suffer economically because of the lack of family coherence, and then in the next breath says that women suffer economically because of family coherence.

In other words, Sowell's response to economically disadvantaged blacks is "Well, they just need a family," while his response to economically disadvantaged women is "Well, you shouldn't have had a family."

I won't lie, I don't think Sowell realizes he's doing this. But he's being a shifty motherfucker.

Can you elucidate what you mean by egalitarianism, what about it is admirable, what related behaviors are, and what expected outcomes would be? Preferably with some empirical examples.

I don't have an issue with some definitions of egalitarianism. I wouldn't necesaarily call those bushmen egalitarian.

I could provide an example, but based on your final remark I don't think I need to because none of my examples will reflect perfectly the practices of that group. So part of me supposes that the author would ask us to extrapolate from the bushmen an egalitarian sensibility that wouldn't appear the same in our culture, but that would (to use your word) translate into our culture, in some way, shape, or form.

My example would be a non-economic one having to do with distributing discussion among students in the classroom, specifically with regard to a class I taught in which one student was significantly more advanced than the rest. He could respond at length to my questions and quote fucking Hegel while doing it, but his responses yielded no material benefit for anyone else because they didn't have the intellectual resources to follow along (not that they weren't smart enough, but they weren't exposed enough), and the course didn't call for that level of knowledge.

He and I discussed his experience outside of class and determined how he could contribute to the class without directing the discussion toward his intellectual framework, and offering comments that other students felt comfortable responding to.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Getting knocked up =/= having a family.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, I would agree--but Sowell explicitly uses the term "never-married," which is different than someone just getting knocked up.

 

[Dak]

In effect, Sowell has just exposed the contradiction at the heart of his argument: he claims that blacks suffer economically because of the lack of family coherence, and then in the next breath says that women suffer economically because of family coherence.

In other words, Sowell's response to economically disadvantaged blacks is "Well, they just need a family," while his response to economically disadvantaged women is "Well, you shouldn't have had a family."

I won't lie, I don't think Sowell realizes he's doing this. But he's being a shifty motherfucker.

I rather think it's shifty to describe women as suffering economically when getting paid requisite to their participation, never mind the fact that if they have a family, there is likely an additional breadwinner - meaning they are probably more well off on the whole (both economically and otherwise) than single women with no children.

I could provide an example, but based on your final remark I don't think I need to because none of my examples will reflect perfectly the practices of that group. So part of me supposes that the author would ask us to extrapolate from the bushmen an egalitarian sensibility that wouldn't appear the same in our culture, but that would (to use your word) translate into our culture, in some way, shape, or form.

My example would be a non-economic one having to do with distributing discussion among students in the classroom, specifically with regard to a class I taught in which one student was significantly more advanced than the rest. He could respond at length to my questions and quote fucking Hegel while doing it, but his responses yielded no material benefit for anyone else because they didn't have the intellectual resources to follow along (not that they weren't smart enough, but they weren't exposed enough), and the course didn't call for that level of knowledge.

He and I discussed his experience outside of class and determined how he could contribute to the class without directing the discussion toward his intellectual framework, and offering comments that other students felt comfortable responding to.

Well I can agree with a definition of egalitarianism which speaks of legal equality. But what the bushmen have, and what is also a progressive motte-bailey switch when talking about eqalitarianism is equality of (economic) outcome. I doubt you give all of your students the same grade in the course, for instance.

 

[Einherjar86]

I rather think it's shifty to describe women as suffering economically when getting paid requisite to their participation, never mind the fact that if they have a family, there is likely an additional breadwinner - meaning they are probably more well off on the whole (both economically and otherwise) than single women with no children.

Actually, according to Sowell's comment, that's not true. He says that never-married women make more than men with the same experience. So if a woman decided not to have a family and focus on her career, she would earn the same a man would (or more, according to Sowell--not sure how accurate that is), and wouldn't have to worry about feeding other mouths.

Makes a nice case for women to say "fuck family," if you ask me. And that includes black women, who apparently are to blame for the economic suffering of their children, since they didn't provide nice, wholesome families.

Well I can agree with a definition of egalitarianism which speaks of legal equality. But what the bushmen have, and what is also a progressive motte-bailey switch when talking about eqalitarianism is equality of (economic) outcome. I doubt you give all of your students the same grade in the course, for instance.

I do not, but this is what I mean when I say that what the bushmen do wouldn't make sense in our culture. They also don't have the kind of educational support system that the West has, nor do they have the competitive structure that fuels educational rigor. The values behind economic egalitarianism translate differently into our way of life, but that doesn't make them less admirable in another culture's. We just have to distinguish what works for us.

 

[CiG]

What is funny to me about this video is that people assume that leftists don't understand the socioeconomic factors that Sowell is precisely bringing up:

a) that most blacks don't fall into the category of "stable family," and

b) that most single women in the workplace aren't "never married" (in other words, that the pay gap reflects spending time raising children).

The left does understand this, and objects to the underlying ideology which frowns upon women who don't want to marry and have children, because they're abdicating their responsibility as women, or some fucking bullshit.

In effect, Sowell has just exposed the contradiction at the heart of his argument: he claims that blacks suffer economically because of the lack of family coherence, and then in the next breath says that women suffer economically because of family coherence.

In other words, Sowell's response to economically disadvantaged blacks is "Well, they just need a family," while his response to economically disadvantaged women is "Well, you shouldn't have had a family."

I won't lie, I don't think Sowell realizes he's doing this. But he's being a shifty motherfucker.

This is so dumb. Your mistake is assuming that he thinks women earning less than men to raise a family is a bad thing. Only feminists think women earning less to raise a family is a bad thing.

The breakdown of the black family however is objectively a bad thing for black people as a whole.

And again, the left demonstrates how little they understand. Cheers.

 

[Dak]

Actually, according to Sowell's comment, that's not true. He says that never-married women make more than men with the same experience. So if a woman decided not to have a family and focus on her career, she would earn the same a man would (or more, according to Sowell--not sure how accurate that is), and wouldn't have to worry about feeding other mouths.

Makes a nice case for women to say "fuck family," if you ask me. And that includes black women, who apparently are to blame for the economic suffering of their children, since they didn't provide nice, wholesome families.

Dual incomes, even with "78 cents on the dollar" or whatever, along with economies of scale for necessities provide better living situations than single incomes for the lifestyles within reach of most. That doesn't even begin to look into differences in quality of life for married vs unmarried persons. Now, granted, not every marriage is happy and conflict reduces the marriage effect, but on the whole married persons live longer and report higher quality of life/income as they age.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...r-marriage-good-health-single-survey-research

People who get married and stay married have roughly double the wealth of those who never marry – or four times the wealth if you consider their combined household income, research by Jay Zagorsky at Ohio State University suggests.

Married persons have more sex, more money, less "midlife crisis" etc. as a group. Not in every individual case.

Black women aren't specifically to blame for a lack of a wholesome family, but they aren't blameless either. It takes two, as they say. Hell, if we want to place the blame on a third party, it shift immediately to welfare programs which replaced men as the other or sole provider for women

I do not, but this is what I mean when I say that what the bushmen do wouldn't make sense in our culture. They also don't have the kind of educational support system that the West has, nor do they have the competitive structure that fuels educational rigor. The values behind economic egalitarianism translate differently into our way of life, but that doesn't make them less admirable in another culture's. We just have to distinguish what works for us.

You don't agree with stopping at legal equality, or you don't agree with economic or other outcome equality?

 

[CiG]

Makes a nice case for women to say "fuck family," if you ask me. And that includes black women, who apparently are to blame for the economic suffering of their children, since they didn't provide nice, wholesome families.

It does and women are obviously free in the west to say "fuck family" and many are doing it. It also has nothing to do with "nice" and "wholesomeness" it is entirely down to stability, discipline and guidance for children. That should be pretty obvious.

Also, nobody is even blaming black women for the problems relating to the breakdown of the black family. The men that leave their impregnated girlfriends are just as much to blame if not more to blame.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is so dumb. Your mistake is assuming that he thinks women earning less than men to raise a family is a bad thing. Only feminists think women earning less to raise a family is a bad thing.

The breakdown of the black family however is objectively a bad thing for black people as a whole.

And again, the left demonstrates how little they understand. Cheers.

I don't think he thinks that women earning less than men to raise a family is a bad thing. I think he believes it's perfectly fine.

Again, you demonstrate how little you understand my point. Cheers.

Sorry dude, but you brought that one on yourself.

It does and women are obviously free in the west to say "fuck family" and many are doing it.

You're right that more and more women are choosing not to have families. I realize that you might be woke and shit, but the dominant mindset in this country is still that if a woman does choose to have a family, then it's primarily her responsibility to step back from her career and take care of children. That's why more women are feeling pressured to pursue careers and not families, but it doesn't mean they don't want to pursue families.

Dual incomes, even with "78 cents on the dollar" or whatever, along with economies of scale for necessities provide better living situations than single incomes for the lifestyles within reach of most. That doesn't even begin to look into differences in quality of life for married vs unmarried persons. Now, granted, not every marriage is happy and conflict reduces the marriage effect, but on the whole married persons live longer and report higher quality of life/income as they age.

Well, that's not what Sowell said in that clip. He said that based on that statistics he's seen, never-married women of comparable experience earn comparable salaries.

Now, maybe they're less satisfied with their lives because they don't have a family. That's perfectly legitimate, and it's true that having a life partner and family may be intensely fulfilling, much more so than having a lot of money to spend on oneself.

But why do women have to choose between being being the primary breadwinner and having a family? Why can't women be the primary breadwinners of their families? This is the issue, see? That when women do have families, they're expected to be the ones who step away from their careers.

You don't agree with stopping at legal equality, or you don't agree with economic or other outcome equality?

Can you clarify what you mean by "stopping"? As far as economic/income equality, no--I don't believe that everyone in the Western world should have equal incomes.

 

[CiG]

I don't think he thinks that women earning less than men to raise a family is a bad thing. I think he believes it's perfectly fine.

Again, you demonstrate how little you understand my point. Cheers.

Sorry dude, but you brought that one on yourself.

I brought what on myself? You copying my comment? Woah I'm devastated, I didn't see that coming at all.

I did understand your point, you think you caught Sowell in a contradiction and you didn't.

You're right that more and more women are choosing not to have families. I realize that you might be woke and shit, but the dominant mindset in this country is still that if a woman does choose to have a family, then it's primarily her responsibility to step back from her career and take care of children. That's why more women are feeling pressured to pursue careers and not families, but it doesn't mean they don't want to pursue families.

What's the problem? Women if they want to can step back and raise (and breastfeed) their children or they can do what other women do and hire babysitters/caretakers or if they earn much more than the men do, the men can work part time or stay home.

People are already doing this. It just so happens that women tend to prefer to stay home once they have a child and this happens even in the most gender egalitarian societies on earth. Surprise surprise men and women are different and have different priorities.

Go suicide bomb a biologist if you can't accept that.

 

[Einherjar86]

I brought what on myself? You copying my comment? Woah I'm devastated, I didn't see that coming at all.

I did understand your point, you think you caught Sowell in a contradiction and you didn't.

Um, I did... but I'm not going to reiterate it.

Also, I explained what you misunderstood, so...

What's the problem? Women if they want to can step back and raise (and breastfeed) their children or they can do what other women do and hire babysitters/caretakers or if they earn much more than the men do, the men can work part time or stay home.

Sure, because most families having their first child can afford full-time care. That's a brilliant solution.

People are already doing this. It just so happens that women tend to prefer to stay home once they have a child and this happens even in the most gender egalitarian societies on earth. Surprise surprise men and women are different and have different priorities.

No, that's not true. Women simply often accept the role of caretaker, often because they feel compelled to (either by their husband or by their community); but this doesn't mean they don't desire to pursue a career beyond the home. In fact, lots of stay-at-home mothers admit that they are bored and feel that they had to sacrifice their careers in order to stay at home.

So I ask: why shouldn't fathers feel so compelled to stay at home?

Go suicide bomb a biologist if you can't accept that.

You been drinking bro?

But no, I get it. It's all biology. Mothers are just all goopy and gobbly for their children, it's estrogen man, no other way to explain it. Ingenious.

 

[CiG]

You been drinking bro?

No.

But no, I get it. It's all biology. Mothers are just all goopy and gobbly for their children, it's estrogen man, no other way to explain it. Ingenious.

Maybe one day if you have kids you can ask your wife how she feels about her kids and then compare her feelings to yours. I've noticed a pattern of ignorance with you and it always seems to come back to the fact that you're a childless academic that grew up in a privileged family probably in a majority-white area.

We all have our blindspots.

Sure, because most families having their first child can afford full-time care. That's a brilliant solution.

Solution to what?

No, that's not true. Women simply often accept the role of caretaker, often because they feel compelled to (either by their husband or by their community); but this doesn't mean they don't desire to pursue a career beyond the home.

Any proof of this?

In fact, lots of stay-at-home mothers admit that they are bored and feel that they had to sacrifice their careers in order to stay at home.

We all sacrifice things in life, it's part of being an adult. Being bored because you're at home all day and your kids are now at school or whatever, sure that would be boring. But does that mean they regret their choices or just that they're bored?

Seems a vague example to carry your point.

So I ask: why shouldn't fathers feel so compelled to stay at home?

Why should they? Because at this point we are trying to reverse what seems to be a natural phenomenon of men preferring to work and raise their children at a distance comparatively and women preferring to raise their children more intimately.

 

[arg]

Broken families makes blacks poor. They need strong families with good values. Sowell is right.

Having a family while on low income makes blacks poor. Don't have a family you can't afford. Sowell is also right. No contradiction

Forcing equality of outcome is bad, some lefties agree and that is good. But forcing equality of opportunity through massive wealth redistribution and stupid biased rules is also bad. True equality of opportunity is leaving everyone the fuck alone, neither hindering nor helping them.

 

[CiG]

When Women Choose Children Over a Career.

This is an interesting article on the subject.

Each of the women in this group had been on a successful track after leaving Northwestern, and wanted and intended to have a career after having kids. They were a television writer, teacher, opera singer, public relations manager, lawyer, management consultant, fundraiser and financial adviser, among other professions. Many described their decision to stay home as something that came as a complete surprise.

That becoming a mother changes one’s worldview isn’t news. But while some women had their worlds rocked and then picked themselves up, put on their business casual, and went back to the office, others decided to upend their careers and refashion themselves as full-time mothers. What accounted for the vastly different reactions to the same life-changing event?

While one school of thought is that inadequate family-leave policies inhibit women’s professional advancements, we didn’t encounter a single interviewee who said something like “I didn’t have any maternity leave so I quit,” or, “My maternity leave was too short so I quit.” In fact, most of our interviewees were relatively happy with their maternity benefits.

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe one day if you have kids you can ask your wife how she feels about her kids and then compare her feelings to yours. I've noticed a pattern of ignorance with you and it always seems to come back to the fact that you're a childless academic that grew up in a privileged family probably in a majority-white area.

This is what it always comes back to--my lack of experience.

If you knew my wife, you'd know that she would find it presumptuous to compare her feelings to mine when it comes to something like our children. Dear god, can you imagine getting into a pissing match with your partner about who cares more about their children? Just the possibility makes my skin crawl.

I did grow up in an affluent neighborhood that was predominantly white. That doesn't make me unqualified to speak on these issues. It's fucking obnoxious when you and other people on here accuse me of being inexperienced because of my history. I may not have suffered the iniquities the American dream, but that doesn't make my opinion less authoritative.

Solution to what?

Nice dodge.

Any proof of this?

You'll get evidence. You'll never get "proof." If that's your bar, it's too high.

https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-having-it-all

I can’t tell you how many times over the course of this research the women I interviewed apologized for “wanting it all.” But it wasn’t as though these women were looking for special treatment. They were quite prepared to shoulder more than their fair share of the work involved in having both career and family. So why on earth shouldn’t they feel entitled to rich, multidimensional lives? At the end of the day, women simply want the choices in love and work that men take for granted.

Instead, they operate in a society where motherhood carries enormous economic penalties. Two recent studies lay out these penalties in very specific terms. In her study, economist Waldfogel finds that mothers earn less than other women do even when you control for marital status, experience, and education. In fact, according to her research, one child produces a “penalty” of 6% of earnings, while two children produce a wage penalty of 13%. In a more recent study, economists Michelle Budig and Paula England find that motherhood results in a penalty of 7% per child.

Given such a huge disincentive, why do women persist in trying to “have it all”? Because, as a large body of research demonstrates, women are happier when they have both career and family.

We all sacrifice things in life, it's part of being an adult. Being bored because you're at home all day and your kids are now at school or whatever, sure that would be boring. But does that mean they regret their choices or just that they're bored?

Do you think that sacrifice is equal/even between men and women?

I've noticed a pattern of ignorance with you and it always seems to come back to the fact that you're not an academic who grew up in an intellectually... lacking community.

Why should they? Because at this point we are trying to reverse what seems to be a natural phenomenon of men preferring to work and raise their children at a distance comparatively and women preferring to raise their children more intimately.

It's cute that you believe human behavior is "natural"; and "preference" here is tenuous at best.