Recent content by TacticalTea

Buddy... Remember when the screechers were opposed to a land invasion, pretexting it would cause more collateral damage than literal bombings from the sky? It's never been about the practical reality.

The Asian countries suffer from similar yet slightly different problems. Their societies are extremely rigid (Japan, SK) and hostile to intersexual warmth. If you pull up a graph of Korean youth politics, you'll see the young men and women are diametrically opposed.

I doubt you actually believe that based on your posting history. The purpose of a system is what it does. If your system reduces natality, it is not pro-natalist. Slapping a peace symbol on a rocket doesn't make it non-violent.

I'm using the same source as you. It shows no effect at all. And it shows the current culture taken generally is anti natalist. It follows from there that anything which reinforced that culture is anti natalist. As to your last question: de-centering money as a source of meaning in and of...

Not to mention we should not be encouraging "parenthood as a job" which is what the Canada child benefit does, resulting in disastrous familial environments in poor communities.

It doesn't. Read my last paragraph to my reply to Brihard. Alternatively, provide source convincingly showing substantial effect of natalist policies you've alluded to so far. (It doesn't exist) You gave me that source. Quebec has universal childcare and below replacement fertility. This is...

It doesn't matter what anyone wants. The current culture tends towards extinction and will be replaced. Either by foreign cultures coming in and taking over, or by homegrown natalist counter cultures. Basic math. There's a bit of cause and effect inversion at play here. Much of that is...

What? Can you at least explain your rationale? A policy that dehumanizes children and trivializes family is NOT anti-natalist? The data shows a .1 difference, and Quebec remains well below replacement. Utterly inconclusive. Nothing points directly to universal childcare either. Could be...

Getting rid of your kids as soon as possible (right as your maternal leave runs out) to fork them over to the government is not conducive to centering life around the family or creating the best relationship between mother and child. Rather, it is yet another form of commodification of...

Universal child care is an anti-natalist policy, for the record.

Why couldn't they just say "you're tresspassing, begone", on day one?

That's not true. First generations are often more grateful towards their new country because they chose it, whereas second and third gens may feel they are citizens of nowhere (no matter how welcoming the receiving country may be) and may even engage in rebellious or terroristic acts to greater...

I'm sure dozens of people have told you this before, so I don't know why I bother to write it, but the problem is not the individual migrant, it's the number and the inability to properly assimilate them to the receiving society and its culture.

From internal sources, I've been told the nomination process generally has been a "sh*tshow".

Of course not. So why then do all our institutions do their darndest their deny this to their French and English founding peoples? Why must the solution be "force more migrants down the throats of the only communities that have maintained their identity so far"? Why can't it be, I don't know...