gibson wrote:No you literally just lack reading comprehension. In all of your posts you talk about billions of people immigrating because I implied one time that immigration is sometimes the best option for people (which isn't even debatable)?
And you're being vague about what are the consequences of what you're proposing. What is it actually that you're proposing? That most of them still be left to live in their home countries or that they should immigrate to developed countries, because
Obviously the best solution is for people to have better lives in their own countries, unfortunately however this is not always possible.
So which one is it, and what is the estimated population that would need to be moved to developed countries to meet realistic targets? What would the impact be, what about benefits? Why don't you stop being vague and just explain what you're proposing, instead of just adopting this moral grandstanding posture?
You just feel the need so strongly to defend your outdated nationalistic worldview you see challenges to it everywhere, even where they don't exist
Where did I ever defend a nationalistic worldview, point me to a post in which I did this. It's a big assumption you're making, possibly because you are assuming that I'm defending Trump, which I'm not. For me Trump is still unfit for the position of POTUS, and that's coming from a guy who has a degree in political science and a bit of political experience (a few years).
My position is strictly about immigration and using immigration as a tool to "fix" both real and imaginary ills, as if moving people in large numbers from one place to another ever fixed anything. It would be dumb for me to support nationalism, when I have first-person experience on how much nationalism can historically retard your country (Romania was pretty much under a National-Communist regime before 1989). On the other hand, this utopian mentality that everything is fixable if we just mix everything into one melting pot and basically destroy any possible cultural difference or status difference is even more dangerous than nationalism. Who would actually willingly want his culture to be completely wiped out and turned into a distraction for tourists or a bunch of cuisine recipes for uprooted "global" citizens? Who would want everyone on the planet to speak one single language and to lose all the linguistic wealth we've accumulated until now? What's the purpose of wanting to mix everything to the point of non-distinctiveness and general mediocrity? It surprises me that people who claim to be Nietzsche readers here even support this, unaware of all the long-term consequences of wanting to decontextualise every possible culture and turn it into a global product, basically turn it into a deprecated "national" fossil.
It's funny trying to argue with people who literally don't want humanity overall to do better.
It's even funnier to argue with people who think in terms of species-level policies. Maybe we should talk about how successful this concept of "human rights" has been in the Middle East, just to gauge how successful such attempts at species-level policies have been.