no, people don't like what y'all CLAIM is the solution to inflation, because it doesn't bring prices DOWN and just punts the problem to consumers as always. try doing something to stop the rampant runaway corporate grifting and you'll make people a lot happier.

"other considerations" is the nicest euphemism for "racist bullshit" I've ever heard

@dietotaku Hmm...

Let's deconstruct that idea via a test:

Would you feel any different if an Indigenous culture restricted immigration to their lands for the express reason of wanting to preserve their culture and way of life?

How about if an African country or, say, China did the same thing?

... or what if that Indigenous culture restricted immigration in an attempt to safeguard their lineage against erasure by dilution in the global gene pool?

It's not necessarily rooted in racist hatred.

@IrelandTorin an indigenous culture safeguarding themselves against actual genocide which has actually already happened to them is not remotely the same as "safeguarding their lineage against erasure by dilution in the global gene pool," the latter of which is absolutely racist as all fuck. anybody, and i mean ANYBODY, saying "we don't want race-mixing" is a racist piece of shit that is absolutely demonstrating racial hatred.

@dietotaku I'm not talking about the "race mixing is bad" folks. You're right, they're a bunch of racists.

Safeguarding against erasure is very different than the disgusting (and, from a genetic point of view, nonsensical) racist concept of "purity": the former simply seeks to ensure that *some* population (potentially a very small one) with majority-<x> ancestry/culture can persist; the latter abhorrently rejects or seeks to destroy anything that does not conform to a given stereotype.

@IrelandTorin I really genuinely don't see how "safeguarding against erasure" is any different from "race mixing is bad" or racial purity. you literally defined it as ensuring the existence of >50% racial purity. is there functionally any difference between someone seeking to prevent racial dilution and someone seeking to exterminate the racially diluted?

@dietotaku That's very black-&-white...

To illustrate the difference, imagine both taken to their final endpoints.

Taken to its endpoint, the former (safeguarding against erasure) would result in thousands upon thousands of small communities all over the place sustaining different traditional ways of life & phenotypes... embedded in a larger vibrant multicultural society.

OTOH the latter (racist extermination) results in monoculture after one culture/ethnicity brutally massacres all others.

@IrelandTorin taken to its endpoint, "safeguarding against erasure" does result in monoculture as exterminating other races is the only 100% guaranteed way to "prevent racial dilution," and which monoculture that is just depends on which one is most successful at "safeguarding against erasure" in the extreme.

@dietotaku Sure, if you're a hateful racist who doesn't care about safeguarding *other* cultures/ethnicities against erasure as well to preserve as much cultural and phenotypic diversity as possible...

But if you're not, well, that isn't considered an acceptable (or logical) endpoint because it would result in the erasure of nearly 100% of extant cultural and ethno-phenotypic diversity.

@IrelandTorin so at worst we have genocide and at best we have a fuckton of segregation and *still no race-mixing bc it is physically impossible to ensure racial preservation w/racial interbreeding.* neither one seems like a win to me.

also we're talking purely phenotypical here, bc your culture has nothing to do w/the color of your skin. you can be white as rice & still preserve the cultural traditions of your ancestors.

@IrelandTorin frankly, I don't see any intrinsic merit to phenotypical diversity that makes it worth segregation and practical eugenics.