French President Election- The Centre Fights Back?

[Anil]

I think you'd find most alt-Rs would support academia/science conceptually but complain that institutions are currently political in nature and thus conclusions drawn from them should be treated with scepticism.

so regardless of the sound bites, in effect they don't support it...right?

 

[Ausage]

so regardless of the sound bites, in effect they don't support it...right?

I think like a lot of people they support the bits they agree with, while disregarding bits they don't agree with.

 

[Bahnz]

I have absolutely no idea where he's got that stuff from, most alt-right types are extremely hostile to the humanities and and many of them are proudly anti-positivist which kind of precludes being pro-science.

Alt-right stuff is just the NRx movement from a few years back with better branding, a subreddit and a 4chan board.

He pulled it from a Milo article that apparently changed his life.

 

[watson]

He pulled it from a Milo article that apparently changed his life.

If you juxtapose Economic Socialism with Social Conservatism then you get something called Alt Right.

(When I say Socialism I don't mean the really radical stuff, I rather mean the mainstream Socialism of Gough Whitlam, Michael Foot or Tony Benn).

Now if there is another name for this blending of Left/Right ideas then I am happy to use it, but I haven't yet been able to find a suitable one that fits other than Alt Right.

Have I always Economically Left and Socially Right? Yep, as long as I can remember. I knew what I believed decades before Milo came along a penned an approximation of what I already felt.

 

[Spark]

I think you'd find most alt-Rs would support academia/science conceptually but complain that institutions are currently political in nature and thus conclusions drawn from them should be treated with scepticism.

Some certainly do, but there's a large portion which comes from an intellectual tradition which is very much anti-science on philosophical grounds.

 

[Flem274*]

immigration levels will remain at ridiculously high levels for god knows what reason other than to freeze wages and keep big business happy.

i work in a company with loads of tertiary skilled immigrants (ASIANS even) in a field that has, shall we say, some big economic disparities between companies at times. the immigrants aren't an issue at all. they're bloody good at what they do and as keen on liveable wages being a part of their kiwi dream as us homegrown nzers.

the issue is some companies know they don't really have to play nice with their workforce in the current job market and even if staff turnover and training is cutting into their profits, they still make enough to not care.

1000 odd years ago nz had no people at all. wages were pretty terrible back then i hear.

 

[hendrix]

Australia and New Zealand are undoubtedly profiting economically from every single resident immigrant. The immigration system is set up for it to be so. Even if you factor in increased demand for housing and job displacement - which are multifactorial and not really attributable to immigration it's impossible to come to the conclusion that Australian and NZ citizens are economically worse off.

The cultural arguments against are frankly stupid as well, obviously.

The only actually logical argument against the current immigration system of Australia and New Zealand is that it's unfair to the donor country, not the host country. I.E. we're robbing the Ireland, the Philippines, Scotland, China and India of their most intelligent and hard-working citizens who might otherwise go on to improve the economies of their countries of birth. However, the logical extension of this argument is not that immigration should be stopped, it's that immigration should be completely unrestricted (theoretically - practical constraints apply).

 

[Spark]

Economies of the source countries do often benefit quite a bit via remittances tbf.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The only actually logical argument against the current immigration system of Australia and New Zealand is that it's unfair to the donor country, not the host country. I.E. we're robbing India of their most intelligent and hard-working citizens who might otherwise go on to improve the economies of their countries of birth.

Lol no. Shri's leaving India for Sydney.

 

[watson]

Australia and New Zealand are undoubtedly profiting economically from every single resident immigrant. The immigration system is set up for it to be so. Even if you factor in increased demand for housing and job displacement - which are multifactorial and not really attributable to immigration it's impossible to come to the conclusion that Australian and NZ citizens are economically worse off.

The cultural arguments against are frankly stupid as well, obviously.

The only actually logical argument against the current immigration system of Australia and New Zealand is that it's unfair to the donor country, not the host country. I.E. we're robbing the Ireland, the Philippines, Scotland, China and India of their most intelligent and hard-working citizens who might otherwise go on to improve the economies of their countries of birth. However, the logical extension of this argument is not that immigration should be stopped, it's that immigration should be completely unrestricted (theoretically - practical constraints apply).

God it's difficult isn't it. Like wading through molasses on a cold day.

EDIT: Since this is a thread about the French election I would estimate that at least 11 million French voters disagree with that sentence in the middle of your post. I would also estimate that the actual number is a couple of million more, but those voters couldn't bring themselves to vote Len Pen for obvious reasons.

Just because you don't understand a particular phenonomen doesn't mean that the reasons behind it are 'frankly stupid'. All it means is that you don't understand the reasons.......



Eskimo: Cricket is obviously a stupid sport and a waste of time. All that standing around is just plain silly.

CW person: I disagree. I think cricket is a great sport with a great history.

Eskimo: Can you tell me why it is important to you because I just fell asleep watching less than a session of a Test match on TV.

CW person: Actually I can't tell you why cricket is important to me in concrete terms. It's kind of an intuitive thing.

Eskimo: Well you must be dumb then. Wake-up to yourself or get lost.

 

[Anil]

I think like a lot of people they support the bits they agree with, while disregarding bits they don't agree with.

not really, that is not the definition of supporting science...hey i get they are millions who are as dire or even worse than alt-righters but that is not a basis for normalizing their ideology...

 

[watson]

not really, that is not the definition of supporting science...hey i get they are millions who are as dire or even worse than alt-righters but that is not a basis for normalizing their ideology...

About 40% of Americans believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago and most Muslims believe that the first humans were Adam and Eve. Presumably they were somehow 'beamed down' from heaven without belly-buttons.

On that basis it would be easy to conclude that Christianity and Islam are anti-science; but of course it's a bit more complicated than that.

Likewise, while social Conservatives are often sceptical of Climate Science because it has supposedly been overly politicised they would universally say that the Ranaissance and the Enlightenment periods are of great significance to Western culture and way of thinking. So again, it's all rather more complicated than appears at first glance.

(Personally, I think that Climate Science is a given and rarely doubt (if ever) the conclusions drawn by the NAS - so there)

 

[Anil]

About 40% of Americans believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago and most Muslims believe that the first humans were Adam and Eve. Presumably they were somehow 'beamed down' from heaven without belly-buttons.

On that basis it would be easy to conclude that Christianity and Islam are anti-science; but of course it's a bit more complicated than that.

Likewise, while social Conservatives are often sceptical of Climate Science because it has supposedly been overly politicised they would universally say that the Ranaissance and the Enlightenment periods are of great significance to Western culture and way of thinking. So again, it's all rather more complicated than appears at first glance.

(Personally, I think that Climate Science is a given and rarely doubt (if ever) the conclusions drawn by the NAS - so there)

No

 

[brockley]

Is he centre or left as he was in the Socialist party beforehand.
If thats the case don't know how he will be recieved,especially
1 Terrorist attacks still happens.
2 Follows those socialists precepts.