This how every single argument for mass immigration goes.
Step 1: "Oh, you have concerns about [X group] coming into your country? Well, here's one person from that group who's good. What do you think of that, huh? Do you hate this person, too??"
[when presented with evidence that said person isn't representative of said group writ large]
Step 2: Actually, all those bad things you just mentioned are America's fault. And anyways, it's good for them to come here. I don't have to explain why. It just is.
[no, I think that would probably be bad for us]
Step 3: Honestly, who even is "us"? Who is "we"? Does America even exist? Do you know what America is? Because other people think America's something else. So how can you be so sure that America is anything at all?
Step 3.5: Actually, America is a real thing. But that real thing is just values—values that just so happen to require us to accept unlimited amounts of people from every single place in the world. And if you disagree, you actually hate America.
Step 4: Statue of Liberty quote. Obligatory.
Pro-tip: At this point, you start really layering the moral condescension on thick. You can't believe that anybody would be so stupid as to not want infinite Haitians. It's insulting. It's outrageous. Frankly, it's un-American. Does your interlocutor know anything about America?
Step 5: Google "quotes about why immigration is awesome."
Try to find one from somebody that you think the guy you're arguing with might like and/or respect. Boom. Owned.
Step 6: Alright, you know what? None of that worked. Change of plans. Pivot to just googling pictures of the guy you're arguing with and posting them in his mentions.
Step 7: Double down. Then bizarrely claim at the end that you're not saying the thing that everyone knows you're obviously saying. (At this point you're not even talking about immigration anymore, which is good, because you know you lost that argument).
Anyways, none of this is actually an abstract thought experiment—as much as the other side wants it to be. Real people. Real consequences.
@America_2100 is going to Charleroi, PA next week to report on what’s happening on the ground. Follow our account to keep up with the story.
Anyways, this is an important thread. This story has to go nuclear—it should be one of the only things that elected Republicans are talking about right now:
One of the equally admirable and frustrating things about Americans is how open-minded they are. Even when their town is literally getting invaded by Haitians, their first instinct is to try to patiently explain to the invaders why they need to behave themselves.
Imagine the Romans meeting the barbarians at the gates and going, "I have read about some of your countries and it was scary. I understand why you left. But there's a huge cultural difference. So if you want to be part of this great city then you need to understand our culture."
Just to clarify: Obviously, the kind of "open-mindedness" this guy is demonstrating—while heartbreaking—is not admirable in any kind of aspirational sense. As I said to Will below, it's a sort of modern corruption of a traditionally American virtue:
Europe's insane speech laws—whereby just uttering forbidden phrases are often grounds for criminal prosecution—undermine the entire story that Western liberal democracy tells about itself. If this was happening in an enemy nation, we'd be sanctioning them for human rights abuses.
Well, we probably wouldn't sanction them for persecuting people who use "Nazi phrases," specifically, because "we"—i.e., the people who run our foreign policy—approve of wielding state power to crush the so-called "far right." But the speech laws in principle would be condemned.
i.e., if Nayib Bukele started hauling Salvadorans who used phrases associated with the historic communist rebellions of the 1930s into court, the U.S. State Department would go into conniptions
If Kamala Harris wins, her persecution of political enemies may well end up dwarfing Biden's. I'm not sure that the miraculous restoration of free speech on this website would survive. Elon himself would almost certainly be subjected to coordinated, heavy harassment and lawfare.
My view is, this alone is reason enough to vote for Trump. Many have noted that free speech on the internet is one of the most important issues of our time; the struggle for control of our future, to a substantial extent, hinges on the struggle for control of the online world.
Republicans barely talk about this issue anymore, which is a huge issue, given how significant—on a civilizational level—it is. Trump wouldn't actually solve the issue. But even if he did nothing—just kept the status quo—it would save us from the catastrophe we'd get with Harris.
The Juneteenth federal holiday emerged alongside the 1619 Project, Black Lives Matter, and critical race theory. Its purpose was clear from the start.
Conservatives who think they can celebrate it for "different, better" reasons are being taken for a ride.spectator.org/against-junete…
Until it became a federal holiday in 2021, Juneteenth was a largely obscure regional affair. As @realJeremyCarl pointed out in this thread, Biden never mentioned it until he was running for president—and 60% of Americans knew "little to nothing" about it.
From 2021 to 2023, Gen Z's support for gay marriage dropped by double digits, even as support increased in every other generation.
Zoomers—specifically Zoomer boys—are going to be much more right-wing than a lot of people expect.
The other thing is, the overall Gen Z numbers are almost certainly concealing a far more drastic rightwards shift among boys.
The unprecedented ideological gender gap within Gen Z is an international phenomenon. This is from an Ipsos survey across 26 countries a few months ago:
And @BradWilcoxIFS noted the same thing in the context of the 2023 Survey Center on American Life poll I cited up top: