thett3

Their responsibility is to their shareholders, and if you want to make a moral case which I think is perfectly fine, then we also have to consider what kind of moral responsibility if any Twitter has to limit the spread of disinformation and its potentially harmful effects. 

Do you know how many women I know that are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and were scared to take the vaccine for exactly that reason Nikki brought up (fertility issues) which have so far been completely unproven? Note that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. I know women who have miscarried after getting the vaccine and suffered emotional distress because of bullshit posts like the ones made by Nikki that made them think they were at fault when there is no observed harm from the Covid vaccine.

I'm glad a patriotic young man like 7th has stepped up and offered to lead us all to a brighter future

what idiot said no to the first question. 

Well who knows what they really settled for. I've talked to corporate lawyers before about their settlement strategy. It's usually to keep dragging things out until the other side gets in a financial bind and needs the money.

But that conversation is natural, so I don’t think this is at all concerning from a left wing perspective. Conservatism is by definition about conserving the past, future generations have no interest in that which is why younger voters tend to be far more liberal than their parents.

Another factor here is the urban rural divide, which is a far bigger indicator of how a population will view  political issues. So unless cities dwindle in population while rural areas boom, I wouldn’t expect anything to change there either. In fact a population boom in rural areas would only make them see things more like their liberal counterparts.

I don’t find any of this surprising though when you look at it, the less dense a population then less there is to do. If I lived in the middle of no where (no offense to anyone living in rural America) I would probably have lots of babies too. Plus it’s so much cheaper as you mentioned that it just makes sense.

Overall this may bring some hard times for future generations economically, but is ultimately good for the species and the earth. There are too many people on this planet and resources are already stretching too thin. Only 1% of the earths water is drinkable and towns around the world are starting to run out. Treating salt water is expensive, so the price of everything will skyrocket. We are quite possibly living in the most preposterous time in human history.

- That hit the nail on the head. Europeans were successful in colonizing much of the World largely owing to population size. Europe experienced an unprecedented & interrupted population explosion in the 18th & 19th century. In fact, up to early or mid 18th century, the Ottoman Empire was on a stalemate with European powers, boasting a comparable GDP to the rest of Europe combined, & -along with vassal states- also a similar population. By the 19th century, however, single European countries (such as France, Germany, UK...) had each a larger population than the entire Ottoman Empire. Contest became untenable. This is exactly what is happening to the Western world. Today, the Muslim world has more than twice the population of the West, & 4 times by 2060. The only conceivable way the West could retain back their population in the future is if they purge the Liberal virus & go back to faith.

- Interesting! Add to wildcards Muslims as well, maybe Hindus too. It's sad how by the onset of the 20th century, Whites constituted almost 40% the global population -that's China & India combined, with a global majority of urban population. Yet, in a couple of decades they won't even amount to 10%, & even less further into the future. Then, there were 6-7 times more Whites than Blacks, by 2070 the ratio will literally reverse. All thanks to the great & magnificent Western Values. 

Biden rolling back Trump’s policies means we end up right back to the same laws we’ve had in place for the past few decades. I get that you find Trump’s policies better by comparison, but once again, you are blaming the surge on Biden and his policies when there has been no significant change to any longstanding US policy on this. So if we weren’t seeing these numbers with the same policies before, why is the surge Biden’s fault now? This is what I’m talking about when I point to correlation =/= causation.

And not for nothing, but do you not think Trump’s hyper-focus on this issue has had something to do with this as well? I mean the guy rambles on and on about how stupid our immigration laws are all the time. Before he came along I had no idea what asylum laws were, and most people had never even heard the term. Now it’s a prominent national debate the whole world is talking about. You can’t argue that this has had nothing to do with it, especially while you simultaneously argue that migrant awareness of our laws is a major catalyst here.

That's what I mean. It's not that you are talking about inflation because it's at a multi decade high, and think tanks also happen to be talking about it. It's that you're talking about inflation because think tanks conspired to make it a talking point, and it also happens to be at a multi decade high.

The emerging democratic majority is probably bunk FWIW. The politics of the country will change a lot but it's a lot more likely that hispanics and working class whites will form a coalition that freezes out upper class liberal and business conservative whites and black people imo. I don't think most people see it this way yet though

Again, I’m not arguing that Biden’s roll back of Trump’s  policies don’t account for any of it, I’m just asking those who are branding this as a problem almost entirely of Biden’s creation substantiate that claim.

No, it probably wouldn’t but whether you accept it or not that is the issue. Biden’s policies wouldn’t mean a damn thing if these people didn’t find their conditions so horrible that they would literally risk their lives and that of their families to trek across an entire country to possibly be let into a land completely foreign to them in the hopes that they might find a better life for themselves. Folks like yourself talk as if these people are just hopping in vans and going for a joyride. The issue is much bigger than “let’s deter them by making them wait in Mexico”.

Yeah, I was waiting for this. It’s a war against White people. Got it.

Can you provide an example or two of a prominent left wing figure that has openly stated this?

I think humans are very attracted to doomsday ideas, we've just got it in our bones. So maybe things never turn out as badly as we imagine, but. 

But the increase amounts to a difference of one quarter of one percent of our population, and matches the same number of illegal crossings we were seeing 20 years ago when none of this was even considered a political priority.

Yes, 77% increase from what was previously the worst year on record. More importantly it represents a huge increase from record lows that were more recent 

According to your source we saw a 77% increase in encounters from 2019 to 2021. That’s not nothing, and it’s certainly not something for the administration to ignore. But the increase amounts to a difference of one quarter of one percent of our population, and matches the same number of illegal crossings we were seeing 20 years ago when none of this was even considered a political priority. So to say as you have, that Trump solved the immigration problem but now under Biden we don’t have a border any more is just absurd.

The OP hasn’t been answered, because correlation is not causation. You have done nothing to show that the policy changes you point to account for any significant portion of the increase, and ignore the fact that while our sudden increase in illegal immigration is unprecedented so are the circumstances surrounding it. When was the last time the world economy was shut down by a pandemic? When was the last time that economic conditions in South America were this bad while the US faces a labor shortage? All Biden can do is deal with the influx of crossers, he has little to do with the conditions driving them here in the first place, if you actually care about keeping these numbers down that is where you should be focused.

And to that point, you continually blame the crisis on the perception that the US border is wide open without addressing where the majority of that perception comes from. Hint: you won’t hear the words “open borders” uttered very much on MSNBC.

All of this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by this, but I think you're referring to the soon-to-be increased importance of environmental effects (how you raise your kids) on life outcomes. If so, I think that IQ as a relatively-important measure could be true, but overall genetic quality will reduce what people are capable of. Plumbers will be worse, worse accountants, worse electricians. An overall worse-off society.

If there is, that's the reason their civilization died out. This seems like an entirely manufactured issue for people to all of a sudden choose to have no kids and say they hate kids. That is occurring even without considering the rapid change of living expenses. Single-income households with children living in a house used to be possible with a factory job, but now it is barely possible for one working parent with a college degree to live in an apartment with any kids. But even if it were possible to have kids financially, I'm still at a loss that people don't even have it as a goal. Their current goal is no children, retire early.

My thoughts exactly. The biggest way to change the future is through your kids. You have a lot of influence on their beliefs depending on your relationship with them, so you'll be leaving the earth worse off by your own measure. There is so much you can do to lower carbon emissions like having a garden, biking as much as possible to go places, etc. Saying "I'll just not have a kid" while eating specialty foods that need to be shipped a thousand miles is just a lazy copout attempt to show you "care" while expending no effort.

I did go to a Catholic high school, and I'm starting to see a handful of marriages. Almost all of them are the still strongly-Catholic kids that want a lot of kids from what I understand. The kids that left religion (excluding me for the time being :/ ) seem to be entirely or almost entirely unmarried. Even though these kids went to the same high school and the same 3 or 4 grade schools, they are ending up in much different places. They weren't the liberal-types of "Catholic" schools either, so it seems that both the school and the parents both need to promote religious lifestyles to even have a hope of them keeping it.

It would make sense, only one of my parents was technically religious but didn't take it seriously (didn't even go to Sunday Mass).

Yes, I do think that the introduction of mass-legalized abortion and the sexual revolution soon following the wide availability of birth control also did a lot to cognitively disassociate sex from having children.

As for the gene pool, I think the future looks rather grim. Lower-IQ people have less foresight/planning ability and have more kids, while those wealthier, higher-IQ people choose to have less on average. Considering that 40-60% of intelligence is inherited, we are going to go through a stage of serious dysgenics that will take many generations to recover from.

Certainly more is necessary- a cultural shift. Maybe a return to religiosity in which parenthood is greatly encouraged would do the trick, but it would have to be a religion that forbids contraceptives like Catholicism and more traditional sects of other religions (hence why Orthodox Jews have a ton of kids as you noted- while not entirely banned, they are quite restrictive over contraceptives)

This modernist, atheist attitude of living life to the fullest while young and no life after death really has no room in it to waste your finite time and money on raising children.

Certainly it's probable that high living expenses prevent some liberals from having kids, but considering that even those at the higher percentiles of income in the US still don't tend to have as many kids as the poorer ones, I think that again is only one piece of the puzzle.

Not sure how representative this is, but as an anecdote, one of my professors had told us about how his daughter had once wanted to have 3 or 4 kids. His daughter and her husband I believe he said were both doctors (very able to afford kids), but now she doesn't want any because she is worried about climate change. It's insane how all of this fearmongering turned someone who would have been likely a great parent into one adamantly opposed to having children.

However, I am not seeing that progression towards wanting to have kids (or even in some cases, to get married) among many of my peers. Even if it does happen, it'll likely be too late to have any.

>The Middle East and Africa have entered the chat

More of a problem for Europe than us, but that could change quickly based on how easy transport from one country to another has become 

Good post, though! It’s very curious that we don’t know why birthrates have declined. Obviously contraception has played a major role, probably the entrance of women into the workplace as well. That mixed with the fact that a frightening amount of people my age say that they hate kids and never want them adds attitudes about parenthood to the mix.

Hungary has seen some increases to its birthrate and marriage rate since the passage of their generous social benefits for those that have kids. It doesn’t seem substantial enough, but I hope they can be an example for us

The current issue can’t be fixed without congress changing the asylum laws, but Trumps policies did fix the problem.