rtl49

I can't tell whether this is a satire or a parody.

It's simplistic because of the format. Its intention is to explain the general line of reasoning to the person who asked for it, not provide an exhaustive analysis.

The article you've cited addresses immigration in general, not low-skill immigration by itself. This could support argument in favor of a selective immigration policy, not massive immigration of low-skill workers from developing countries.

In this case it would result in their being repatriated to their countries of origin. Usually these are ovens only in a figurative sense.

Ordinary people in the US benefit economically because of their citizenship. Many of these people possess few skills and would live in abject poverty doing the same work in other countries. Admitting large numbers of low-skilled workers increases the supply of laborers, with the result that competition for employment increases, and wages decline. Even with a minimum wage, the number of employment opportunities is reduced. Thus, ordinary citizens stand to experience a decline in their quality of life.

You aren't too old to do something new.

People working in this industry are often required to display unfelt enthusiasm for things that really aren't terribly exciting. One can be forgiven for being through with this nonsense by the age of 30.

I would never consider working as a software developer but for my sincere interest in the value that my software provides and my enjoyment of the craft. Otherwise I think it would be comparable to accounting, the quintessential boring yet rewarding career.

Do what you truly wish to do. To be concerned about being too old at the age of 30 is just silly.

If we applied this to traffic laws, people would insist upon traffic laws that better reflect the way they wish to drive.

Yes. Extraordinary people are significantly less common than ordinary ones. Therefore, admitting large numbers of people indiscriminately will result in admitting significantly larger numbers of ordinary people. Perhaps I was wrong to say "many" orders of magnitude, but other than that I stand by the remark.

Often stories of this sort are used to advocate a more permissive immigration policy, particularly toward those from Mexico and South America who have entered the US illegally seeking economic opportunity.

Rational arguments seldom make their way into this discussion, if it can be called that.

On the one side we have the empathetic liberals, who in many cases ultimately wish to see the complete abolition of national borders and global inequality. Joining them are corporations, which want abundant labor in order to reduce the costs of employment.

On the other, we have low-skilled citizens, who don't wish to see their quality of life reduced by admitting large numbers of people willing to work for very little. Along with them are those concerned about the political and cultural consequences of admitting a massive, homogeneous, and very different group of people into their homeland. There are probably some racists among the group, though probably far fewer than the other side often claim.

Whichever side you find yourself on, I think the following must be admitted:

1) The ordinary citizen currently in the United States will likely experience a decline in quality of life as a result of a permissive immigration policy.

2) Massive economic migration to rich countries from poor ones is not a solution to the problem of global economic inequality or poverty.

3) Historical instances of immigration, colonialism, and invasion do not justify or necessitate permissive immigration policies in the present day.

The number of such people is probably many orders of magnitude fewer than the number of ordinary people who benefit from economic migration to the potential detriment of citizens already living in the country. Existing immigration policies reflect this fact.

Possibly so, which is why decision-making is so often delegated to those who have no personal involvement.

From a more detached point of view, the question is whether law ought to be enforced irrespective of how it is violated. Many people would say yes.

I don't believe "a study" is needed to arrive at every conclusion under the sun. Just as I don't need a study to assert that I'm looking at a computer monitor right now, I don't need one to assert that people who are armed are in general better defended against violence than those who are not.

That being said, I was only calling out a simplistic remark about the association between guns and the incidence of violence.

Shots fired.

This article does not actually posit or examine the titular question. It merely states the statistic we all now know and then goes on a tangent about diversity in the tech industry.

Pure clickbait, not worth your time.

For those of you lucky enough to have skipped the article, here's a summary:

A few academics have noted that religious participation is declining in America, interest in spectator sports is increasing, and the two have a few broad similarities. Therefore, football is the new American religion.

I don't care much about sports or religion, but frankly this article is laughable. They even troubled to throw in the perfunctory "correlation does not equal causation" admonition, as if it makes their line of reasoning any less spurious. Pure junk.

I think much of the dissonance we experience when evaluating Seneca's life comes from our separation from his time period. Concerning the particular issue you mention, possibly contributing to rebellion in Britannia by calling for debts to be paid, I can't say I think it reflects a blatant divergence from his professed ideals in itself. (Truthfully, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the rebellion to take a strong stance.) It could be that he called in the debts not expecting the outcome, but once the rebellion started, it was important that it be opposed forcefully in order to avoid establishing precedent. It isn't as though Seneca was living as Caligula did.

In any case, my point is primarily about the focus of the article. It's fine to examine contradictions in a notable person's life, but too few acknowledge that we all have them, and this seems especially true among literary critics. In general, I think people take charges of "hypocrisy" too seriously.