The idea that minorities automatically become religious conservative zealots because of racism is an insult and it’s racist as fuck.

Language is only a tiny part of integration. Authoritarian and conservative ideology is a much bigger issue.

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

??? You’re so far off topic I don’t even know if you’re replying to the right comment.

Removed by mod

What does anti-democratic religious fundamentalism have to do with skin color? Have you met American Christians?

Also, the only diversity I care about is intellectual. Why would we base our immigration policy on “race” quotas, which is what you seem to be suggesting, instead of merit? Especially when the bar is so so low. Don’t be a religious shitbag. Easy.

Integration requires a choice, not a generation. If what you mean to say is that hyperconservative religious zealots are unable to wrap their minds around women’s rights and democracy, then that’s their problem. Plenty of people around the world would give their left nut to live in a free democracy. Remember, that’s just 8% of the countries on this planet and basically the only ones with any upward mobility for the masses. The fact that religious fucks can’t be bothered to learn a new language or use basic reasoning to come to the conclusion that democracy is good is their problem.

Why not both?

Low birth rates —> neoliberals need workers so they increase immigration —> influx of religious zealotry fuels cultural friction.

Religion poses an existential threat to life on earth. Islam is especially toxic, but we don’t even have to single it out to deploy simple tests for citizenship. Free speech? Check. Democracy? Check. Women’s rights? Etc. Prove that you’re in favor of these things or fuck right off.

There wouldn’t be any problems if the idiots in charge required some integration for civic purposes. Can’t speak French? Alas, you can’t be a French citizen. Duh. Religious zealotry? No thanks, we’ll pass. You don’t agree with democracy and free speech? Then go away.

deleted by creator

By “human” you might mean

1. an animal whose DNA falls within a specific probability distribution, or
2. an animal that embodies various virtues or transcendental capacities, etc.

We should acknowledge that countless creatures meet condition 1 but not 2. So what?

Do you dehumanize bears when you acknowledge that they lack certain abilities? I like bears. They’re great! Doesn’t mean I have to pretend that they’re civilized or intelligent.

I’m not sure if that research’s been done, but it would be highly surprising if psychopaths were not the ones in favor of limiting women’s reproductive freedom.

What I can tell you is that abortion rights are an “easy” moral issue. Every year or two there’s a survey among professional philosophers, who of course disagree on basically everything. However, the item with the most consensus is abortion. That’s because there are simply no good arguments against abortion rights. The only reason someone might be against reproductive freedom is… well… moral imbecility.

We already know that moral reasoning exists on a spectrum of competence. That some people are so bad at it that it’s pathological, and that some percentage of these people are also narcissistic enough to be called “psychopaths.” It’s a disorder; it’s on a spectrum, and anti-abortion zealots are on that spectrum.

Thinking ahead has never been the purview of the rich.

deleted by creator

So if I hide a walkie talkie at your house you’d be ok with your family being bombed? Lmao. Dumb as shit and morally depraved.

Opinions on abortion are strong indicators of psychopathy. Nobody against legal abortion has a functional moral sense. Some are just incredibly morally stupid. Others are religious zombies. But they’re all dangerous and fundamentally animalistic. We can coexist with these creatures, obviously — we already do. But the widespread delusion that they’re just like us has been incredibly dangerous and possibly world-ending. It’s no coincidence they’re the same “people” who support pollution and celebrate ecological depredation.

I’m actually surprised it took people this long to realize how truly horrible Intel leadership has been over the past 2 decades.

In English, the word “parent” can be used in two important but very different ways.

1. Biologically, conveying causal information about gametes and probability distributions of genetic data.

2. Normatively, implying duties, rights, and responsibilities associated with certain close human relationships.

While it’s true that people often love their biological children and vice versa, the relevant fact is the emotional bond (condition 2), not the biological one, which has no normative import.

deleted by creator