Randomness thread, part two.

[spoonitnow]

Walls work. Get over it.

[BananaStand]

Meaning you still think we're talking politics?

lol.

LOL. No that's not what I mean.

[CoccoBill]

@MMM, you were confused earlier about the definition of ad-hominem attacks. ^This is one.

As MMM already pointed out, that was not an ad hominem, that was an insult.

I never said anything even close to that. Strawman.

Called this. I commend you for changing your opinion then.

"how does unrestricted immigration help America?" Can you explain why that question is idiotic, invalid, or unworthy of an answer?

You're punching a bag that you yourself put up there, insinuating that "ANYONE" or more specifically me is holding that view, which is the definition of a strawman.

Can you use reason, facts, or logic to make your case?

I try. You should too. It takes a little bit more effort but it's not that hard.

Or are you just going to continue to be an obedient drone executing your programmed task of crying 'racism'

No I'm also gonna start blaming everyone else for everything that's wrong with my life.

[spoonitnow]

Historically, exactly 0 walls have proven successful measures at accomplishing any possible goal of having a wall.

Here's a second example to show how wrong you are and how you have literally no fucking idea what you're talking about.



Fun graph of illegal immigration through one particular border wall implemented in Hungary, on a daily basis, implemented in 2015.

Go ahead and spin how thousands of illegal immigrants stopped on a daily basis means we don't really know if it's going to work or some other autistic shit.

[CoccoBill]

^Looks like they learned pretty quickly to go around it.

[BananaStand]

As MMM already pointed out, that was not an ad hominem, that was an insult.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Called this.

Are you high???

The post you link here, has nothing to do with how you categorized my argument in post 25411.

You're punching a bag that you yourself put up there, insinuating that "ANYONE" or more specifically me is holding that view, which is the definition of a strawman.

Seriously....are you HIGH??? Your position is that the question is idiotic. I don't need to "insinuate" that. You said it.

no one in this thread is answering your idiotic question about benefits of illegal immigration

^Those are your exact words sir. Do you deny them??

now that we've settled that....I will reiterate my question, which you have yet to answer...

WHY is the question idiotic??

I try. You should too. It takes a little bit more effort but it's not that hard

.
Well your last five posts have been personal insults and accusations of racism. If it's "not that hard" to use facts, logic, and reason...then what is your explanation for not doing so?

No I'm also gonna start blaming everyone else for everything that's wrong with my life.

Also part of the progressive automaton programming. Congratulations on being a perfectly functional robot.

[spoonitnow]

^Looks like they learned pretty quickly to go around it.

I'm confused as to how you could possibly look at the data and have that opinion?

138,396 in September 2015 followed by 315 in November 2015. I can't wrap my mind around how you would think that at all.



Edit: Here's the most current period of 30 days for reference (source: police.hu).

[OngBonga]

I feel obliged to ask... who the fuck wants to go to Hungary?

White people trying to escape the rest of Europe, that's all.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Walls work. Get over it.

lol

[OngBonga]

When I read mojo's comment about how walls don't do what they're supposed to, I read about the Siege of Vienna on Wikipedia.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thank you for proving my point. Any request for intelligent debate on this issue is met with personal attacks, because thats ALL the other side has.

Noting that you argue with literally every opinion which goes against your own isn't an insult, it's an observation.
Noting that you haven't once responded to a link with anything indicative of your perspective changing isn't an insult, either.
That's who you are presenting to FTR, and if you're insulted by who you're presenting to FTR, then frankly, I agree.

Furthermore:
You're gonna talk snowflake talk on this? You dish out insults like candy to trick-or-treaters.
Hypocrite.

There is no intelligent defense for unrestricted immigration.

Furthermore, your "educate yourself" comment is hopelessly misguided. If you believe that I am not spending significant amounts of time each and every day consuming news, analysis, and commentary from a myriad of sources with a variety of political leanings....then you clearly haven't been paying very close attention to anything I've ever posted.

Educating yourself about things which are not the question you're asking is not what I suggested.

[BananaStand]

Noting that you argue with literally every opinion which goes against your own isn't an insult, it's an observation.
Noting that you haven't once responded to a link with anything indicative of your perspective changing isn't an insult, either.
That's who you are presenting to FTR, and if you're insulted by who you're presenting to FTR, then frankly, I agree.

Furthermore:
You're gonna talk snowflake talk on this? You dish out insults like candy to trick-or-treaters.
Hypocrite.

I'm stunned how words can get so FUBAR'd in the short distance from your computer screen to your eyeballs.

I am the furthest thing from a snowflake. Do your worst.

My point was nothing hypocritical. My point was that you had opportunities all day to be "not into that game". Yet you only made your "observation" after being challenged to provide ANY kind of cogent, compelling, logical, reasonable, fact-based, credible analysis.

The timing is suspicious.

If it makes you feel better, you do get some credit for not calling me a racist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

When I read mojo's comment about how walls don't do what they're supposed to, I read about the Siege of Vienna on Wikipedia.

The Ottomans were a military invading force, not immigrants.
The Ottomans weren't using cannons. There's a reason modern cities aren't walled. It started with the advent of cannons being able to render walls useless at keeping out an invading army.

***
A wall isn't keeping anyone anywhere. The patrols are. A wall can slow down the trespassers, but nothing more.
If the trespassers decide they really, really want through, it's not going to be the wall that stops them, it's going to be munitions.

[BananaStand]

A wall isn't keeping anyone anywhere. The patrols are. A wall can slow down the trespassers, but nothing more.
If the trespassers decide they really, really want through, it's not going to be the wall that stops them, it's going to be munitions.

You really should educate yourself on what walls can do these days.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Me: Do your own research. You don't listen to anyone else's anyway
Nanners: All I get is personal attacks!
Me: That wasn't an attack, you hypocrite. Why you takin' the snowflake angle?
Nanners: I'm not a snowflake!

I'm stunned how [...]

You're going with melodrama, this time?

I thought you weren't a snowflake.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You really should educate yourself on what walls can do these days.

A prison without guards isn't holding any prisoners.

It's not the wall, it's the munitions.

[spoonitnow]

You really should educate yourself on what walls can do these days.

It's almost like he willfully ignores reality when it's presented to him in black and white.

This is why I try not to engage with them. It's useless.

[spoonitnow]

A wall isn't keeping anyone anywhere.

See post #25434 above to see just one example of how wrong you are.

Not that it will keep you from repeating the same shit over and over. Your types are incapable of dealing in logic, reason and facts. You simply don't know what to do with them.

[spoonitnow]

Border Wall Models Thwart US Commandos in Tests

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...dos-tests.html

SAN DIEGO — Recent assaults by tactical teams on prototypes of President Donald Trump's proposed wall with Mexico indicate their imposing heights should stop border crossers, a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the rigorous assessment told The Associated Press.

Military special forces based in Florida and U.S. Customs and Border Protection special units spent three weeks trying to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not authorized for public release.

But hey, they probably have no idea what they're doing because walls won't keep out military anyway.

[BananaStand]

Me: Do your own research. You don't listen to anyone else's anyway

the first is a thinly veiled admission of ignorance. The latter is a false statement that you made knowingly, therefore it can only be interpreted as a personal attack.

Nanners: All I get is personal attacks!

See above. However, I never referenced *I*. Your suspiciously timed withdrawal is typical of those who try to defend the indefensible.

Me: That wasn't an attack, you hypocrite. Why you takin' the snowflake angle?

yes it was, and why you talkin' like a black guy now?

Nanners: I'm not a snowflake!

True

You're going with melodrama, this time?

False

I thought you weren't a snowflake.

True

[BananaStand]

A prison without guards isn't holding any prisoners.

It's not the wall, it's the munitions.

how many guards do you need to run a prison with no walls??

Again, I'll explain this to you...slowly

there are people whose chosen profession is policing the United States border.

Their profession requires them to patrol the border, screen entrants, make arrests, detain violators, and maintain an infrastructure of technology that enhances their efforts.

their leadership has the knowledge that accompanies many decades of collective experience in performing this task.

And these people have stated, emphatically, that securing the border requires three things.

Manpower

Technology

Physical barriers

All of these three things are required, and work symbiotically.

The system fails if any one element is missing.

this is the expert opinion of the people most knowledgeable on the subject

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's almost like he willfully ignores reality when it's presented to him in black and white.

This is why I try not to engage with them. It's useless.

None of your examples are of unpatrolled walls.
Add some people with a violence manopoly on one side, though... that's another story entirely.
You understand that, right? It's not the wall that stops people, its the presence of the opposing force.

Putting a wall up isn't going to change much of anything. Patrolling the border will. If there's a wall, that means fewer patrols can presumably do more work, due to the trespassers having to navigate that obstacle. Great.

Put up a wall alone, and a ladder beats it. If not a ladder than something as trivial.

A wall alone does nothing. It's the authority and manpower disparity on either side of it that is doing the real work.


National borders are arbitrary lines based on history, and not usually based on anything sensible, just a cock-waving contest that ended one way and not any others. Let's not make a bigger deal of it than it is. If I go to Illinois and commit a crime, why is that so much less of a problem than if some one from Mexico goes to LA and commits a crime? That's what I don't understand.

[BananaStand]

If I go to Illinois and commit a crime, why is that so much less of a problem than if some one from Mexico goes to LA and commits a crime? That's what I don't understand.

Wut?????

[MadMojoMonkey]

Border Wall Models Thwart US Commandos in Tests

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...dos-tests.html



But hey, they probably have no idea what they're doing because walls won't keep out military anyway.

You gotta read your own links.
It doesn't anywhere say what the results of those attempts were.
It says the prototypes were 30' tall. Taller than other designs, and more costly.
I am less than 30' from a 30' ladder.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wut?????

It's a total tangent and I almost left it out, but I liked the prior phrase, and left it in.

Ahem.
In both cases, the criminal crosses a border. Mine's a state border, the hypothetical Mexican criminal crosses a national border.

Why are these such dramatically different things?

[BananaStand]

You gotta read your own links.
It doesn't anywhere say what the results of those attempts were.
It says the prototypes were 30' tall. Taller than other designs, and more costly.
I am less than 30' from a 30' ladder.

Do you think you could approach the wall with that ladder, lean it against a wall covered in sensors, climb the ladder, balance yourself on the smooth, rounded, possibly spiked top of the wall, lift the ladder over the wall, and climb down and then cross an open desert before you're located by a camera, sensor or drone, and subsequently intercepted by agents?

How much do you think your chances improve if the wall isn't there?

Do you get it now? Symbiosis between manpower, technology, and physical barriers results in security.

[BananaStand]

It's a total tangent and I almost left it out, but I liked the prior phrase, and left it in.

Speaking of tangents. Sounds like you're saying you felt particularly compelled to post the word "cock".

I wonder what that's about.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Border Wall Models Thwart US Commandos in Tests

Damn, I read the whole thing, and I gotta add this:

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you get it now? Symbiosis between manpower, technology, and physical barriers results in security.

SMH.

I never said otherwise.

I said walls do not do what they say on the tin. You are only agreeing with me if that's what you think I need to "get."

[MadMojoMonkey]

Speaking of tangents. Sounds like you're saying you felt particularly compelled to post the word "cock".

I wonder what that's about.

No, I was tickled at the arbitrariness of where borders are, and that they're based on past wars or other military or political shenanigans, and I appreciate musing on their actual relevance to preventing un-social behavior (to broadly categorize the breaking of any form of rule or law) among humans.

That other bit is all you.

[spoonitnow]

I give up with MMM. I've tried to be supportive, but he's stuck, and there's no unsticking him, sadly.

[BananaStand]

Why are these such dramatically different things?

I feel like the reasons are trivially obvious. So sorry not sorry if this sounds condescending.

States and countries are different things. I'll leave you to your own research if you seek further details on that.

Surely you understand the need for a country to know who is coming in, why, and for how long?

If the mexican person came into America legally, and then commits a crime, then it's ostensibly not different. However, surely you agree that person has forfeited the privilege to stay in this country after that person has served an appropriate sentence for his crime.

If the mexican person came LA illegally and then commits a crime, then that's two crimes.

Again, I thought it should be trivially obvious that two is more than one.

[BananaStand]

You are only agreeing with me if that's what you think I need to "get."

No, you are agreeing with me

[MadMojoMonkey]

I give up with MMM. I've tried to be supportive, but he's stuck, and there's no unsticking him, sadly.

The article also said 1 guy managed to hook some kind of grapple to a wall.
Doesn't that bother you?

You seriously consider that link to be indicative that a wall without a patrol is going to stop anyone?

You can pretend to be indignant over something I'm not arguing, but nothing you've shown me is an example of a wall doing the work. In your prior link (The Israeli wall), there was legislation passed in advance of the wall which had an effect of decreasing crossings at that border even before the wall was completed. As noted in that article, it was a relatively short wall (compared to the scale of the US-Mexico border), which was across an open desert plain, making patrolling it easier due to high mobility and visibility for the patrols.

The patrols.

The wall alone isn't stopping anyone. It's the authority and munitions of the patrols.

Ignore that all you like, but you're the one with blinders on if you think a wall alone is keeping anyone anywhere.

[spoonitnow]

The article also said 1 guy managed to hook some kind of grapple to a wall.
Doesn't that bother you?

You seriously consider that link to be indicative that a wall without a patrol is going to stop anyone?

You can pretend to be indignant over something I'm not arguing, but nothing you've shown me is an example of a wall doing the work. In your prior link (The Israeli wall), there was legislation passed in advance of the wall which had an effect of decreasing crossings at that border even before the wall was completed. As noted in that article, it was a relatively short wall (compared to the scale of the US-Mexico border), which was across an open desert plain, making patrolling it easier due to high mobility and visibility for the patrols.

The patrols.

The wall alone isn't stopping anyone. It's the authority and munitions of the patrols.

Ignore that all you like, but you're the one with blinders on if you think a wall alone is keeping anyone anywhere.

You're a complete fucking autistic dumbfuck moron if you think that patrols by themselves are more fucking effective than patrols plus physical barriers.

You're also a total idiot if you think that anywhere in this thread any goddamn where anyone has said that a wall by itself is "keeping anyone anywhere" or that there would be a wall with no patrols.

This is the last thing I'm saying to you on any of this because you're clearly out in goddamn la-la land instead of here in reality. If you'd pay attention to what people are actually saying instead of what you think they're saying off wherever the fuck your mind is at any given time, then you'd be tolerable to have a conversation with.

[BananaStand]

@MMM do you think a border wall helps or hurts America?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're a complete fucking autistic dumbfuck moron if you think that patrols by themselves are more fucking effective than patrols plus physical barriers.

You're also a total idiot if you think that anywhere in this thread any goddamn where anyone has said that a wall by itself is "keeping anyone anywhere" or that there would be a wall with no patrols.

This is the last thing I'm saying to you on any of this because you're clearly out in goddamn la-la land instead of here in reality.

I never said the first one. You're .. umm.. those things you said.. if you think I said that thing you said I said.

On the second one. I never said anyone said that. I said walls.. historically, they fail. They don't do what they say they do.
Then nanners got his panties in a twist over how much I agreed with him, and we danced all day.

You haven't even understood my point.
My point is that your prior claim that your "dark side" is one of facts and reason was laughably ignoring all the idiots on your "dark side" while equally, if not more so, vilifying your supposed counterparts "non-dark side" as hogging all the idiots.

All this wall talk is just nanners way of telling me he likes the new nickname, I think.

[BananaStand]

All this wall talk is just nanners way of telling me he likes the new nickname, I think.

It's better than Pollyanna

[wufwugy]

"how do open borders help america?". No one has yet to present an intelligent response to that question. And this isn't just true of this forum. It's true across the entirety of national discourse on this issue.

I'll answer the question. Before I answer I'll say some discourse on it attempts to answer the question. This is economist Bryan Caplan's pet issue, and he is very smart, he's an open borders anarcho-capitalist, and he talks quite directly about open borders.

The answer to the question is that open borders would help America if (1) welfare was eliminated, (2) immigration was not allowed for people who would already be in prison if they were here, and (3) if borders were privately owned and managed.

As you can see, this only sorta answers the question, because (3) and partly (2) wouldn't be open borders technically. Anyways, (1) and (2) are what one of the most thoughtful economists thinks would be required for open borders or just immigration in general to work. I think he is mostly right, but also we need (3) as well.

And probably the reason we need (3) is this: long term unintended consequences of transforming the national culture away from the very liberty and morality oriented sensibilities that are necessary for the vast growth in prosperity that the nation experiences. (3) would essentially make it so borders are not open; instead immigrants would be chosen based on the factors that property owners deem to make them beneficial to the property, which would make them beneficial to society per Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.

[wufwugy]

If walls don't work, what makes them work?

[spoonitnow]

If walls don't work, what makes them work?

But they don't work. They've never worked.



Ever.

[BananaStand]

I'll answer the question

Unrestricted immigration would only benefit America if three hallucinatory conditions are met, one of which is a restriction on immigration.

I appreciate it because it's the most thoughtful and fact based attempt at answering the question. But I think we're in agreement here that the conclusion is that it's simply NOT good for America.

So if that's the clear, obvious, fact based, reasonable conclusion....what's up with the other side? Are they idiots? Or are they liars and deceivers?

[spoonitnow]

Unrestricted immigration would only benefit America if three hallucinatory conditions are met, one of which is a restriction on immigration.

I appreciate it because it's the most thoughtful and fact based attempt at answering the question. But I think we're in agreement here that the conclusion is that it's simply NOT good for America.

So if that's the clear, obvious, fact based, reasonable conclusion....what's up with the other side? Are they idiots? Or are they liars and deceivers?

I personally think it's a combination of mass delusion and simply not knowing any better.

[wufwugy]

So if that's the clear, obvious, fact based, reasonable conclusion....what's up with the other side? Are they idiots? Or are they liars and deceivers?

Maybe they have chosen a side because the framing is taking sides.

[wufwugy]

I personally think it's a combination of mass delusion and simply not knowing any better.

An unintended consequence of new generations not having to struggle with the real way of things is that they don't know the real way of things.

[BananaStand]

I personally think it's a combination of mass delusion and simply not knowing any better.

Depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about your common libtard, that's true.

But who's doing the deluding?

Pay attention Polly. You said you don't particularly care one way or other on the issue. This is why you should get clued in.

There is a sinister liberal cabal (i.e. The Democrat Party) that does what any political party in a democracy does - propose, promote, and enact policies that win a majority of votes.

This organization has decided to embrace policies of redistribution, entitlements, big government, and socialism. These policies have nothing to offer the middle class, which is by far the largest population in America. And they have even less to offer the upper class.

The only way this party can win power, is by appealing to the low class, and by turning middle class voters away from economic issues through an aggressive campaign of identity politics.

Immigration is a means to enhance their power by increasing the population of the low class.

Read that again. Part of the Democratic Party's agenda is to expand the population of people living in poverty.

They obviously can't say that out loud, that's where the aggressive campaign of identity politics comes in to play. They are relentlessly peddling a message of "Immigrants are the foundation of America" with the caveat "If you don't agree, you're a racist"

this should be frightening to anyone with even an ounce of humane sensibilities. We are literally talking about a government working to maintain a lack of prosperity among a certain class of people in order to secure their votes.

[spoonitnow]

Depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about your common libtard, that's true.

But who's doing the deluding?

Pay attention Polly. You said you don't particularly care one way or other on the issue. This is why you should get clued in.

There is a sinister liberal cabal (i.e. The Democrat Party) that does what any political party in a democracy does - propose, promote, and enact policies that win a majority of votes.

This organization has decided to embrace policies of redistribution, entitlements, big government, and socialism. These policies have nothing to offer the middle class, which is by far the largest population in America. And they have even less to offer the upper class.

The only way this party can win power, is by appealing to the low class, and by turning middle class voters away from economic issues through an aggressive campaign of identity politics.

Immigration is a means to enhance their power by increasing the population of the low class.

Read that again. Part of the Democratic Party's agenda is to expand the population of people living in poverty.

They obviously can't say that out loud, that's where the aggressive campaign of identity politics comes in to play. They are relentlessly peddling a message of "Immigrants are the foundation of America" with the caveat "If you don't agree, you're a racist"

this should be frightening to anyone with even an ounce of humane sensibilities. We are literally talking about a government working to maintain a lack of prosperity among a certain class of people in order to secure their votes.

I agree with the general sentiment. It's the same reason why requiring voter ID is only racist in the United States and not literally anywhere else in the world that requires it. The Democrats are afraid it will hurt their power.

[OngBonga]

There is a sinister liberal cabal (i.e. The Democrat Party) that does what any political party in a democracy does - propose, promote, and enact policies that win a majority of votes.

This organization has decided to embrace policies of redistribution, entitlements, big government, and socialism. These policies have nothing to offer the middle class, which is by far the largest population in America. And they have even less to offer the upper class.

The only way this party can win power, is by appealing to the low class, and by turning middle class voters away from economic issues through an aggressive campaign of identity politics.

Immigration is a means to enhance their power by increasing the population of the low class.

Read that again. Part of the Democratic Party's agenda is to expand the population of people living in poverty.

They obviously can't say that out loud, that's where the aggressive campaign of identity politics comes in to play. They are relentlessly peddling a message of "Immigrants are the foundation of America" with the caveat "If you don't agree, you're a racist"

This is the left, nailed. This snippet in particular...

The only way this party can win power, is by appealing to the low class, and by turning middle class voters away from economic issues through an aggressive campaign of identity politics.

I appreciate this debate has got personal in places, and when butthurt comes into play, it's hard to concede ground. But banana is absolutely 100% correct here, this is the left in modern times. They have lost the economic battle and so the only way they can continue to exist is to fight on other fronts, and what they are doing is making victims of as many people as possible, and bringing more victims into the country, in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.

Their time is nearly up. I anticipate a mass exodus away from the left sooner or later, because the vast majority of the left are nice deluded people who won't accept the ideology of the left when they finally honestly accept that ideology.

[BananaStand]

Their time is nearly up. I anticipate a mass exodus away from the left sooner or later, because the vast majority of the left are nice deluded people who won't accept the ideology of the left when they finally honestly accept that ideology.

I disagree with this part. The vast majority of people on the left are poor, below-working class people who benefit from policies of redistribution and government entitlements. These people won't move away from the left. They've been convinced that "the system is rigged", so offers of jobs and prosperity from the system-riggers will never be trusted. Also, there is an element of addiction when it comes to government support money.

Non-low-class liberals are similarly mesmerized by the spectacle of identity politics. We've dubbed them social justice warriors. As such they are captivated by the thrill of battle. Identifying and calling out racist or sexist behavior is a satisfying victory. They won't give that up. Turn on CNN or MSNBC for five seconds and you'll see what I'm talking about.

What I do see happening, and long overdue, is a massive overhaul of the ideology that drives Republicans. You don't see Trump, or the current republican congress, putting a lick of effort into pro-life policies, easing gun restrictions, or being overly preach-y with the evangelical nonsense. Those issues are losers, and republicans know it. I think you're going to see a centrist-shift from the right as they focus more on what they're best at: the economy and national security.

[OngBonga]

The vast majority of people on the left are poor, below-working class people who benefit from policies of redistribution and government entitlements.

If this were true, then how the fuck do the left win the popular vote? I thought the middle class made up the vast majority of America?

[OngBonga]

mojo, oskar, cocco... these guys aren't poor. They're not dumb either. They just got sucked into the identity politics because they're nice guys who don't want to be considered racist or nazi or any other nasty tag that gets thrown around.

The vast majority of the left are middle class. It's a numbers game, pure and simple. When people like mojo see the left for what it truly is, then it's game over.

If the vast majority of the left were those that actually benefitted from their policies, they would be totally irrelevant.

[BananaStand]

If this were true, then how the fuck do the left win the popular vote? I thought the middle class made up the vast majority of America?

The math isn't complicated. Poor + Deluded = Popular vote

[OngBonga]

More deluded than poor. Many more.

The deluded can become undeluded.

[OngBonga]

Oh wait I posted that in the wrong thread.

Fucking tabs.

edit - ninja modded

[BananaStand]

More deluded than poor. Many more.

The deluded can become undeluded.

we could do this all day, but I think we're probably both right as the difference between "poor" and "deluded" gets kind of murky depending on geography.

For example, if you're an accountant in Brattleboro, VT making $70K a year, you're doing fine. You're firmly middle-class.

If you're an accountant making $70K a year in Palo Alto, CA then you are decidedly poor. From there it's very easy to convince you that the rich, white, cis, elite are holding you down.

So when you get into cities, you have this cross-section of people who are somewhat educated, skilled, and prosperous, yet still identify with and sympathize with the poor. They believe they will benefit from Democratic policies. to an extent, they are correct. while they may not qualify for welfare, many of them can get food stamps. They still support massive tax hikes for the wealthy, free college, and huge government.

This is partly because they can benefit from these policies (poor), and partly because they erroneously believe they will benefit more from these policies (deluded).

New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Portland, Seattle, Detroit, and pretty much any populated city you can name contains huge numbers of this demographic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

mojo, oskar, cocco... these guys aren't poor. They're not dumb either. They just got sucked into the identity politics because they're nice guys who don't want to be considered racist or nazi or any other nasty tag that gets thrown around.

I rarely state any political views, and only on accident or when pressed with a direct question. My views on the subjects of politics (e.g. the efficacy of walls) is not a political view, since I'm not urging anyone to take any action based on my opinions.

Furthermore, I kinda resent the insinuation that I represent a left-wing voice in these conversations.
I'm certain that if the general bent in this crowd was left-wing that I'd be accused of being a right-wing voice.

Calling out inconsistencies and seeking to eliminate melodrama is not political opposition, it's just science.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nanners' new avatar reminds me of kingnat when I see it in my peripheral vision.

[BananaStand]

I rarely state any political views, and only on accident or when pressed with a direct question. My views on the subjects of politics (e.g. the efficacy of walls) is not a political view, since I'm not urging anyone to take any action based on my opinions.

Jesus, you must be a real hit at parties huh?

You inserted yourself into a discussion about a wall as a matter of political policy. Your message was basically to say "Walls didn't work for the Chinese 2500 years ago, so it won't work now". That's a comment on the efficacy of a wall policy.

And now you're trying to say that you "didn't state any political views". I thought you were all about eliminating melodrama??

Furthermore, I kinda resent the insinuation that I represent a left-wing voice in these conversations.
I'm certain that if the general bent in this crowd was left-wing that I'd be accused of being a right-wing voice.

What you're saying here is..."I'm adversarial, and as such, make enemies whenever I join a conversation, regardless of my position"

Calling out inconsistencies and seeking to eliminate melodrama is not political opposition, it's just science.

This post is full of fucking melodrama

[MadMojoMonkey]

If walls don't work, what makes them work?

Assuming your premise; that is the answer to your question.

Or is this a setup for a joke?


***
What makes walls work?

A disparity in the amount of violence that authorities on either side of the wall have at their command.

If one side has more violence to offer the other, then that side controls what the other's freedom is vis-a-vis that border.

A wall can slow down a potential trespasser, but it will not stop them.

[BananaStand]

Assuming your premise; that is the answer to your question.

Or is this a setup for a joke?


***
What makes walls work?

A disparity in the amount of violence that authorities on either side of the wall have at their command.

If one side has more violence to offer the other, then that side controls what the other's freedom is vis-a-vis that border.

A wall can slow down a potential trespasser, but it will not stop them.

What the fuck are you trying to prove here???

If you truly believe this, then you wouldn't bother to lock your door at night.

[OngBonga]

I rarely state any political views, and only on accident or when pressed with a direct question. My views on the subjects of politics (e.g. the efficacy of walls) is not a political view, since I'm not urging anyone to take any action based on my opinions.

Furthermore, I kinda resent the insinuation that I represent a left-wing voice in these conversations.
I'm certain that if the general bent in this crowd was left-wing that I'd be accused of being a right-wing voice.

Calling out inconsistencies and seeking to eliminate melodrama is not political opposition, it's just science.

Fair enough, I apologise for assuming left wing bias. But let me explain why... you default onto the other side of banana's (and to a lesser extent spoon's) thinking because, quite frankly, you don't really like him. It's easier for you to oppose his views than it is to agree with someone you dislike. I mean you start blabbering about how zero walls do their job, like it's somehow making the point of a border wall pointless. Of course the wall is useless alone, just as the wall of Vienna was useless without people to guard it, but it did its job, just like many other walls have done throughout history, including some of the walls you mention. The Great Wall? That must have stopped some invading forces. You did what the left do... drift from the point and make a completely nonsense point in return in the hope it offered some supporting evidence to your case, rather than answer the question at hand, which is something along the lines of "how are open borders good for America?".

The answer is they're not, that banana is right that the vast, vast majority of people who attempt to enter a country through unofficial channels are undesirable people, and that any responsible government should take action to ensure the only immigrants coming into America are legal immigrants.

Building a wall, and staffing it, is one of many measures that will help. Will it stop everyone? No, someone will dig a tunnel. But it will stem the flow, and it serves a greater purpose... it makes it clear than walking across the border is not the way to enter USA.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You inserted yourself into a discussion about a wall as a matter of political policy. Your message was basically to say "Walls didn't work for the Chinese 2500 years ago, so it won't work now". That's a comment on the efficacy of a wall policy.

Check your facts. I was talking about something else entirely and you directly asked me a question about walls in post 25404. My response to that question is the first I mentioned anything about any wall, and prior to that I was telling you how little interest I have in the topic of immigration.

Walls don't work for anyone if their stated function is to keep people on one side from getting to the other side. Period. Ladders are easy to make.
It's the authority and manpower and munitions to enforce it that works.

I thought you said I agreed with you about this, so what's with the confusion, now?

It's not a comment on policy. It's a comment on history. Historically, walls don't work. They don't do what they say on the tin. That's not a policy.
Taking that as some urging to enact some policy is beyond the scope of my statement.

And now you're trying to say that you "didn't state any political views". I thought you were all about eliminating melodrama??

Except when you asked me directly, I answered your questions.

I don't what's melodramatic in asserting that I don't care about these issues.
That's a complete lack of melodrama. IDK what you're seeing.

What you're saying here is..."I'm adversarial, and as such, make enemies whenever I join a conversation, regardless of my position"

You are relatively near the bottom of things I have any respect for in my daily life, so I'm not surprised that you find me adversarial.
However, you've literally continued to argue about walls after asserting we agree, so who's being adversarial in this case?

This post is full of fucking melodrama

lol
I describe that science is an effort to eliminate melodrama from learning and you call me melodramatic.

... and you accuse me of misunderstanding...

Astounding.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean you start blabbering about how zero walls do their job, like it's somehow making the point of a border wall pointless.

I answered one question and the crowd heard me answer another question.

The question wasn't, "Is increasing border patrols in every measure better for border security?"
The question was, "Like what if there was a giant wall doing the work of border patrol agents?"

Walls are ineffective at this task.
Walls cannot do the work of patrol agents.

WTF, ong? Don't buy into his or spoon's twisted rhetoric of misrepresenting what I said.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What the fuck are you trying to prove here???

If you truly believe this, then you wouldn't bother to lock your door at night.

Not true, I have the authority and munitions of the city police on my side.

[OngBonga]

The question was, "Like what if there was a giant wall doing the work of border patrol agents?"

Who the fuck even asked this question? I've seen the question rephrased so many times I can't even remember who asked the original one.

I can't be fucked to read back, so I'll just wind my neck in and leave it to you guys.

[BananaStand]

Listen Polly, I'm not playing this game today where you just mutate the definition of the words you used and act like you meant something entirely different than what you actually said. This thing you do where "anything can mean anything" and "stuff is arbitrary, so talking about is silly" is some real pathetic pot-head stuff.

Either your posts on walls are an on-topic comment on a preferred political policy

or

Your posts on walls are an annoying de-rail meant to pollute the conversation with your annoying adversarial bullshit.

Which is it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Who the fuck even asked this question? I've seen the question rephrased so many times I can't even remember who asked the original one.

I can't be fucked to read back, so I'll just wind my neck in and leave it to you guys.

post 25404

[OngBonga]

Like what if there was a giant wall doing the work of border patrol agents? what if there were decidedly less people pouring over the border and clogging up our courts?

Right, I mean you seem to be taking it too literally.

An improved wall will decrease the number of border patrol agents needed to protect the border. That's a logical conclusion one can draw from banana's question, no? Ok you have to give banana the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not literally advocating the wall doing the job alone, but it's reasonable to do so, I would have thought.

[BananaStand]

Right, I mean you seem to be taking it too literally.

And completely out of context

An improved wall will decrease the number of border patrol agents needed to protect the border.

Duh!! The alternative is we increase the number of border agents by 1000x and have them all stand shoulder to shoulder, lock arms, and say "Hey Cartels...I dare you to come over here"

That's a logical conclusion one can draw from banana's question, no?

Logic is arbitrary man. Pass me that spleef. Do my hands look weird????

Ok you have to give banana the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not literally advocating the wall doing the job alone

What???? And blow up his spot to be adversarial????

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your posts on walls are an annoying de-rail meant to pollute the conversation with your annoying adversarial bullshit.

Check the history, snowflake.

I was talking about something else entirely in this, the Randomness Thread.
then
You asked me a direct question about walls and I answered it, and you've continued to drag that into a conversation.
Your question wasn't about increasing border security, it was about replacing patrols with walls.
now
Don't pretend that I'm perpetuating this distraction, if you call it that.


Next?

[BananaStand]

Your question wasn't about increasing border security, it was about replacing patrols with walls.

Categorically False

If you believe I was not explicit and emphatic in my support for a symbiotic system of physical barriers, manpower, and technology, then you have smoked yourself retarded

[MadMojoMonkey]

Right, I mean you seem to be taking it too literally.

I answered the question I was asked.

Deal with it.gif

[MadMojoMonkey]

Categorically False

If you believe I was not explicit and emphatic in my support for a symbiotic system of physical barriers, manpower, and technology, then you have smoked yourself retarded

Like what if there was a giant wall doing the work of border patrol agents?

lol

Your question was if a wall could "do the work" of a patrol agent.
Categorically no.

lol


What does my belief about your position have to do with the question you asked me?
If I ask you, "Do you like chocolate?"
Whatever you know about my preferences for chocolate don't matter. Nothing I've said on the topic matters. I'm asking your opinion on chocolate.
If I meant to ask about chocolate milk, and you go on about chocolate candy, then who's to blame?
Me. I asked the wrong question.


Take responsibility for your actions, snowflake.

[BananaStand]

Can you read?

If you believe I was not explicit and emphatic in my support for a symbiotic system of physical barriers, manpower, and technology, then you have smoked yourself retarded

Are any of those words confusing to you? Let me know because I really wanna help you sort this out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Can you read?



Are any of those words confusing to you? Let me know because I really wanna help you sort this out.

lol

Are the things we confirmed we agree about dozens of posts back confusing me?
No.

lol