Diversity Stress

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

No you stubborn neo-fascist they are like you,

NEO facists   LOLOL

I love how the left always thinks that if something doesnt' sound bad enough you just have to put 'neo' in front of it to make it sound worse  LOLOL

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Meanwhile, the entirety of the Left is obsessed with flooding every country in the West with migrants, many of them Muslims who make no secret of their goals.

I'm not obsessed with that at all. I've also made it clear why I'm not interested in growing our population. But you only see what you want to see.

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You mean ever larger government taking ever larger shares of the money we earn and pushing itself into every aspect of our lives and everything we can think, write, read, do, or say? Yes. That is indeed something we are agrieved by.

Guess what, so am I! How do you explain that?  Could you be wrong perhaps?

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

That's difficult given the fear of the Left to make the necessary changes, adn the way they cling to ideas and policies that have never worked and will never work. Plus, of course, all those immigrants voting for whatever party promises to keep the borders open and the welfare flowing.

Sure...the left is destroying the world the economy and all your most cherished hopes and dreams. So why hasn't the right simply picked up their weapons and put a stop to it?

You need to whine about it for another 50-60 years or something?

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

LOL. That's because your 'practical' progressives decided the answer was for the West, which makes up about 10% of the population, to have fewer babies, while the 3rd world is pumping them out by the billion. About six million babies will be born in Europe this year and 50 million in Africa.

Yeah, well I've made it quite clear why I think increasing our population is still the wrong thing to do.

I also think investing in foreign economic development is a good by idea because the more affluent societies tend to be the fewer babies they have.

Meanwhile conservatives still say we need to increase the human population. WTF is wrong with you people?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Did you ever stop to think that allowing a deluge of "refugees" and "students" from anywhere all at once, would necessarily cause social and economic issues?

No, eh?

Shallow you.

Did you ever stop to think how disastrous it would be for our economy should our population not increase?

Yes, you just say white people need to have more kids.

How's that working out by the way?

You often cite how generally conservative your family is so you must have at least 37 grandkids by now even be a bunch of great grand kids by rights.

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah, well I've made it quite clear why I think increasing our population is still the wrong thing to do.

Explain.

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Did you ever stop to think how disastrous it would be for our economy should our population not increase?

You’re contradicting your self.

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Explain.

It's ecologically unsustainable.

34 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

You’re contradicting your self.

Explain.

[paxamericana]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's ecologically unsustainable.

Explain.

You’re saying it’s damaging to the environment with increasing population growth but recognizing that more people is needed for economic prosperity. Well what’s it’s going to be? 

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Did you ever stop to think how disastrous it would be for our economy should our population not increase?

Yes, you just say white people need to have more kids.

How's that working out by the way?

You often cite how generally conservative your family is so you must have at least 37 grandkids by now even be a bunch of great grand kids by rights.

This isnt about skin color, dopey.

Its about Canadians.  Its about citizens of THIS country. Its about tax burden, fraud, downward pressure on wages.

Its about way too many, way too fast.

But hey, who am I kidding? As a Libbie, your whole purpose is to destroy society. This debauchery is your goal.

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Just ask Tim Hortons.

Why?

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Why?

Because. 

https://www.timhortonswatch.com/

Tim Horton's is already trying to change their image. It may be too late though. The public sees the crap going on. You can deny it all you like but...only Tweenkies like you would give you any credence.

Have a Tim's doughnut made with hate and illegal immigrant spit. You'll love it and the limp noodles will praise you for it.

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah, well I've made it quite clear why I think increasing our population is still the wrong thing to do.

I also think investing in foreign economic development is a good by idea because the more affluent societies tend to be the fewer babies they have.

Meanwhile conservatives still say we need to increase the human population. WTF is wrong with you people?

No, conservatives say we need to have enough births to match our deaths.

Liberals say we need to have more and more people, which is why they're importing goat herders from Africa.

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

No you stubborn neo-fascist they are like you, that know they are racist bigots and pretend it's okay to be one by redefining words to mean something else.

IOW you're the racist for pointing out my bigotry, the same bloody response ya'll like to hide behind.I won't apologize for constantly pulling away the rocks you like to hide under.

Canada's being invaded by foreigners, my ass. Chickenshit bigots are scared of new Canadian.

I'm scared of new Canadians who believe their violent, primitive religion has to conquer all and that they're justified in murdering anyone who disagrees. Yeah. You, in all your massive, confident ignorance, cannot imagine any other culture would be different from yours. Because you're secular and put little to no importance on religion, you simply presume all others will do the same. You're unable to comprehend people for whom religion is their overriding guide and more important than anything else. 

A lot of people would never go to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, or even India (if female) or a lot of other middle east places due to the violence, misogyny and fanaticism. Canada even warns people not to go. And yet we bring over millions of people from there with ZERO screening and think that's okay! It's because leftist 'tards like you swoon with delight at 'foreign cultures' while despising your own, and yet have so little imagination you can't believe newcomers who come here from other cultures, backward, violent ones, will stick with them.

Anyway, you aren't capable of understanding or participating in such a discussion with anything resembling intelligence because all you see is race. 

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Did you ever stop to think how disastrous it would be for our economy should our population not increase?

Disastrous to whom? 

Not to workers, who would find themselves better able to command higher salaries. Not to workers who would find housing much less expensive. Who would it be disatrous for, exactly? The oligarchs who couldn't expand enough to justify stock price increases?

AI is killing hundreds of thousands of jobs. Robotics is expanding by leaps and bounds. An ever increasing population is a ponzi scheme that has only one ending. Now is the best time to increase productivity through investing in equipment, not bringing in more and more immigrants.

[Michael Hardner]

Came back to review this thread... a lot of name-calling.

There's no easy political axiom on immigration - business wants it, and progressives like foreigners but conservatives want to protect 'old stock' Canadian prosperity and socialists decry when wages are cut...

The environmentalists are the only consistent ones: earth first, economy last.

All others play both sides of the foozeball table IMO.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, paxamericana said:

You’re saying it’s damaging to the environment with increasing population growth but recognizing that more people is needed for economic prosperity. Well what’s it’s going to be? 

I acknowledge the argument that it takes more people to attain economic growth. But I don't agree with it. 

I don't think we need more people for economic prosperity at all. By rights we should be more prosperous with fewer people with a relatively larger pool of resources.

We need to learn how to live within our planet's means to support us, which means we need to put limits on our economy.

This is end of the world catastrophism to conventional economic thinking. Where we're all gonna dieeee sorta thing.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

But hey, who am I kidding? As a Libbie, your whole purpose is to destroy society. This debauchery is your goal.

LMAO! You're a complete loon if that's what you seriously believe.

You're the equivalent of someone who waves their hands around while invoking incantations to ward off evil.

31 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

No, conservatives say we need to have enough births to match our deaths.

That's a lot closer to what I'm saying...zero growth.

That's a death sentence to conventional economic thinking. 

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Disastrous to whom?

People who seem to believe you must have a growing population of consumers to keep capitalism functioning.

Presumably so capital gains can be aggregated and of course ultimately concentrated.

I suppose when enough trickles down to keep everyone happy it works.

But how's that working out do you think?

[paxamericana]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I acknowledge the argument that it takes more people to attain economic growth. But I don't agree with it. 

My argument is predominantly theological. What is our purpose on earth if not to be fruitful and multiply. We hold dominion over the earth to do as we are commanded. It is a resource to be managed not protect as you’re implying. I don’t think you need a lecture on fishery management so I’ll leave my point as such.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

I don’t think you need a lecture on fishery management so I’ll leave my point as such.

No, I certainly don't. The collapse of small fishing communities in a global economy are precisely like canaries in a coal mine.

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

My argument is predominantly theological.

Yes well, why worry about this planet when your God has a Planet B waiting for you up in heaven.

 

[paxamericana]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes well, why worry about this planet when your God has a Planet B waiting for you up in heaven.

 

That’s not the doctrine. It is because this life is suffering, it’s incumbent on us to make the world a better place incrementally. Death is irrelevant when you can make a heaven on earth.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Came back to review this thread... a lot of name-calling.

Any time you talk about wanting more people like yourself around, the frenzied progressives start hurling abuse. This is despite all sociologists agreeing that the vast majority of people across nations and cultures are more comfortable living among people much like themselves.

I think it's just more of the refusal to accept hu,man behaviour that has damned the Left's policies to failure for a hundred years. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's no easy political axiom on immigration - business wants it, and progressives like foreigners but conservatives want to protect 'old stock' Canadian prosperity and socialists decry when wages are cut...
 

 

Conservatives want to protect Canadian values, traditions and culture. A,?nd sure, why not toss prosperity in there too.

Are any of those unworthy goals?

[Moonlight Graham]

On 6/15/2026 at 1:17 PM, eyeball said:

And so the right tends to be sophisticated and realistic and assess things as they are? What makes the right wings concern for the future any more apparent than the left's when the right spends all its time pining away for the past?

On social changes the right often tends to at least to want to tap the brakes, for better or worse. 

Environmentally it's the reverse.  The left warns people of environmental harm while the right tends to steamroll ahead completely ignorant.

So who is more wise?  I guess it depends on the issue.  Neither group looks very smart to me on the whole.

On 6/15/2026 at 1:17 PM, eyeball said:

A discussion along these lines first needs to acknowledge there are real differences between four separate things 1. the left wing, 2. the right wing, 3. conservatives and 4. progressives.

The first two are about the seating arrangement of the French Assembly in the 1700's.

Whether you're a progressive or a conservative has nothing to do with anything.

When you said above "And so the right tends to be sophisticated and realistic and assess things as they are?" you weren't referring to the French Assembly in the 1700s.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

So who is more wise?  I guess it depends on the issue.  Neither group looks very smart to me on the whole.

Mostly because of the manner by which they eschew the more moderate less uncompromising nuanced views between them.

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

When you said above "And so the right tends to be sophisticated and realistic and assess things as they are?" you weren't referring to the French Assembly in the 1700s.

I said the right in the modern context you used to describe the left.

AFAIC however the Left-wing in the original French definition represented a proverbial great unwashed composed of more or less equal numbers of conservative and progressive people. IE people like you and me.

The Right-wing on the other hand represented a much smaller Ancien Regime of wealthy landowners and other influencers of the time. People not like you and me.

It's seems to be a fairly natural juxtaposition of the fundamental competing forces in most governed societies whether they're communist, capitalist or just about any other ism in the book. It's just the innies vs the outies and it's probably been this way since we climbed down from the trees.

To my way of thinking this a far more relevant social division - between those who govern and those who are governed - than something as blithe and trite as innies or outies would suggest.

In terms of simple human numbers only 6% of humans tell some 93% what to do. If and when push comes to shove the only real question for the vast majority of outies is who's side you're on.

That leaves the 1% - a Nouveau  Regime today that like the split and the side just like any other Ancien Regime was accustomed to.

Along with its influence and command over the innies the 1% has also gotten pretty good at influencing the outies but it was easy with a planet for the taking.

Now the waterhole is shrinking, and the animals are getting meaner.

I'm fascinated how the Flamingo Revolution in Albania is morphing and coalescing around a more encompassing sense that governments exist to favour the rich and powerful and it needs to stop.

This sense needs to spread. Wide and far.

Edited Tuesday at 11:21 PM by eyeball

[herbie]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

'm scared of new Canadians who believe their violent, primitive religion

Then have the balls to come out and admit you're a bigot.

Your own religion is full of stoning for adultery, pro-slavery, divine retributions you know are wrong, over the top and not in societies best interest and you don't live by them. Give them the credit they know better to and cease with the bullshit they suffer no consequences if they don't,