“Castes of the United States” on Unqualified Reservations (unlike most posts on that blog, this one isn’t very long).
Thank you. From reading your definitions, I gather that “optimates” tend to be born into money and status and tend to be very well connected. I agree that these people, regardless of gender, tend to shy away from jobs which are dirty, demanding or dangerous but due to their wealth and connections tend to be very well compensated anyway.
(Actually that’s not totally true, I would guess that a non-insignificant percentage end up in demanding jobs and that group is predominantly men.)
But does any of this contradict anything I have said?
OTOH I’m not sure I’ve actually ever seen the same person making that argument and also oppose immigration (unless you count trolls like James A. Donald), so maybe I’m committing the Muhammad Wang fallacy as a result of the outgroup homogeneity bias.
(BTW, in my country, people whining that immigrants are stealing their children’s jobs when there’s no way their children would be willing to do the kind of jobs immigrants tend to do for the kind of pay immigrants tend to accept are so common that Poe’s law applies to them. And here in Europe, thanks to (among other things) cheap tuitions, you don’t need to be an Optimate for your children to be a tenured student.)
I’m not sure what you mean by “Dark Enlightenment types,” but I doubt anyone disputes that there are lots of recent immigrants doing Real Work. The main “boo immigrants” argument on this point is that without these immigrants, the same Real Work would be done by domestic workers for significantly higher wages.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
No, at least not denotationally.
By the way, I find it deliciously ironic that you have used innuendo to accuse me of using innuendo.
No, I’m not. I do think it it would probably be a good thing, but my point was that there isn’t a contradiction between (1) valuing the sort of dirty work which is typically done by men; and (2) opposing the bringing in of foreign labor en masse to do this sort of work.
OTOH I’m not sure I’ve actually ever seen the same person making that argument and also oppose immigration (unless you count trolls like James A. Donald)
Um, the main argument against immigration is not based on the work they do but on what else they do, e.g., commit violent crimes or vote against the policies that created the economic prosperity that enticed them to immigrate in the first place.
FWIW males also commit a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes. And in plenty of places immigrants aren’t allowed to vote, unless they get citizenship first (which usually requires many years and a civics exam).
EDIT: Also, you seem to be implying that voters have non-negligible actual power to affect economic policy, which is preposterous these days.
Thank you. From reading your definitions, I gather that “optimates” tend to be born into money and status and tend to be very well connected. I agree that these people, regardless of gender, tend to shy away from jobs which are dirty, demanding or dangerous but due to their wealth and connections tend to be very well compensated anyway.
(Actually that’s not totally true, I would guess that a non-insignificant percentage end up in demanding jobs and that group is predominantly men.)
But does any of this contradict anything I have said?
The fact is, I sometimes see Dark Enlightenment types making the point that men do a disproportionate fraction of the Real®™© work whereas women mostly do bureaucratic busywork, and therefore yay men, boo feminism, without seeming to notice that the same thing applies to immigrants and therefore yay immigration, boo borders.
OTOH I’m not sure I’ve actually ever seen the same person making that argument and also oppose immigration (unless you count trolls like James A. Donald), so maybe I’m committing the Muhammad Wang fallacy as a result of the outgroup homogeneity bias.
(BTW, in my country, people whining that immigrants are stealing their children’s jobs when there’s no way their children would be willing to do the kind of jobs immigrants tend to do for the kind of pay immigrants tend to accept are so common that Poe’s law applies to them. And here in Europe, thanks to (among other things) cheap tuitions, you don’t need to be an Optimate for your children to be a tenured student.)
I’m not sure what you mean by “Dark Enlightenment types,” but I doubt anyone disputes that there are lots of recent immigrants doing Real Work. The main “boo immigrants” argument on this point is that without these immigrants, the same Real Work would be done by domestic workers for significantly higher wages.
Anyway, please answer my question: Do you disagree with anything I have said? If you want to change the subject, fine, but please first address what I have said. Thank you.
No, at least not denotationally.
By the way, I find it deliciously ironic that you have used innuendo to accuse me of using innuendo.
Well have I connoted or implied anything you disagree with? If so, what?
Are you implying that that would be a good thing? Said higher wages would still have to come from someone’s pockets.
No, I’m not. I do think it it would probably be a good thing, but my point was that there isn’t a contradiction between (1) valuing the sort of dirty work which is typically done by men; and (2) opposing the bringing in of foreign labor en masse to do this sort of work.
Um, the main argument against immigration is not based on the work they do but on what else they do, e.g., commit violent crimes or vote against the policies that created the economic prosperity that enticed them to immigrate in the first place.
FWIW males also commit a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes. And in plenty of places immigrants aren’t allowed to vote, unless they get citizenship first (which usually requires many years and a civics exam).
EDIT: Also, you seem to be implying that voters have non-negligible actual power to affect economic policy, which is preposterous these days.