Post: #76

True. But the general ideology of the People's Action Party is more on the conservative side. It does have left leaning policies but when you see the Guardian condemning Lee Kuan Yew as authoritarian you know where the western left stands on Singapore. I would also bet the justification for those left wing policies is different from the normal left wing stance.

Moreover, it would make more sense to say San Francisco and the Bay Area becoming Singapore. Since Singapore is a city-state that got independence from Malaysia due to having a Chinese majority.

Post: #77

(10-02-2015 11:15 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Let me paint you a picture. You have a nice house and a nice sexy wife. You're a strong believer in meritocracy and place ideology above all else. So when a 6'4, jacked NFL player asks to live in your nice house with your sexy wife you enthusiastically proclaim "Cuck yes!" and shortly thereafter end up with your ass beat on the street while the NFL player is banging your wife, just like you always knew would happen. Meritocracy at work, the better man won. Who are you to complain, right? Sure, you could have simply said "nah bro, this is my house, find your own" and still had your nice house and your sexy wife, but what is that worth compared to being ideologically sound, right? If it works in theory, who cares about what happens in practice!

Fuck the ideology, bro. Look at the outcome. If you have serious reason to believe that the combination of Asian immigration + meritocracy will lead to you losing your $500k IB job and working at McDonald's for $20k, you should NOT support the combination of Asian immigration and meritocracy. End of story. I'm not going to bother discussing the merits or demerits or fairness or other bullshitry. As you said, the focus on this forum is self improvement. If something leads to you being worse off, then that goes against self-improvement, nay?

So if the combination of Asian immigration and meritocracy makes you worse off...........................I'll let you finish.

It's not about fairness.

It's about incentives. It's about capitalism.

It's about having a society that channels self-interest into productive outcomes.

What's the point of self-improvement in a society that isn't meritocratic? Getting back to an example I made earlier, if you throw meritocracy out the window, then why shouldn't an unemployed, broke, obese, basement-dwelling video game and porn addict get a super model girl harem, while you don't?

Also, meritocracy doesn't mean you throw your own self-interest out the window. It just means you have a society that balances each individual's self-interest for the good of said society.

In your case of the alpha NFL player, it's obviously not in America's interest to let him be the alpha fucks while you remain your wife's beta bucks. Why be sexless beta bucks then?

But it's also in America's interest to let the NFL player be beta bucks to another woman. With that incentive, he produces entertainment revenue/value well in excess of his contract cost, and you get entertainment at a fraction of what it would cost you to put on an NFL-level game on your own.

Finally, if you believe in self-interest above all else, what prevents someone from going around and eliminating all the NFL players, since they might steal their wives? What prevents the unemployed, broke, obese, basement-dwelling video game and porn addicts from eliminating all the normal productive guys, since we might steal their wives?

Post: #78

Unfortunately, second generation Asian girls turn into the 2nd most hardcore feminists of all.

I want more of this:


Not this:

Post: #79

One thing to add though regarding asians taking college spots - elite schools that are race blind (Cal, UCLA, & Caltech) are over 40% asian.

SCOTUS is taking up an affirmative action case again this term (which starts on october 5th). They will be re-hearing Fisher v. UTexas.

How far they'll go in restricting affirmative action is up in the air. I know most on RvF will feel that SCOTUS won't do anything but I'm of the camp that SCOTUS will rule on banning affirmative action, but for overtly public schools only. If they didn't want to do anything, they wouldn't have granted certiorari for the same case for a 2nd time in 2 years.

Private schools (ivies, stanford, etc) get tons of public funding via research grants and their students accessing financial aid but I feel that SCOTUS will narrowly tailor their decision to only affect public schools.

IMO, if the ivies went race blind you would probably see asians going from their 20% 'cap' to probably 35%.