[img]/images/various_uploads/Diversity_Lottery_2_Bombings.jpg[/img]

The Democratic leadership and House Speaker Paul Ryan have agreed to alter the rules of the US Diversity Visa Lottery Program after the current system came under scrutiny when one of its beneficiaries recently killed eight people in New York City.

The mentally ill criminal, who may or may not have been a Trump supporter, had apparently contracted a serious case of "lonewolfitis," an enigmatic and untreatable disease that makes any prevention of terrorism impossible and, according to our most eminent political authorities, the world will just have to learn to live with it.

Additionally, according to DNC chair Tom Perez, the current Diversity Lottery is unfair because it favors certain cities and states, while excluding others.

In the new system, titled "Diversity Visa Lottery 2.0," special military units will be instructed to randomly place explosive devices in highly populated areas. These bombs will then explode at intervals calculated by a Harvard computer algorithm, amounting to an average of once every two weeks.

Proponents of this new and fairer Diversity Lottery are confident it will bring about a more rapid spread of the valued diversity craved by most progressive Americans.

A limited poll conducted among our readers shows that this new legislation enjoys popular support, especially in the Midwest. Given the choice between mass immigration from Muslim-majority countries and an algorithm that blows up streets at random, most respondents chose simply random bombings.

This follows on the heels of Minitrue's earlier announcement:

Islamic Roulette: like Russian Roulette but with six bullets

And this:

Living with Moderate Muslims: the board game

In fact, after learning about the Diversity Lottery being involved in the terrorist act, I recalled a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, The Lottery in Babylon, in which the game of chance was made more interesting by adding a chance to die in addition to a chance to win. For this plan to work, participation was made mandatory for all residents.

Here is a brief summary:

There is a lottery in Babylon that began as most lotteries do, offering relatively modest prizes that did not inspire many to participate. Later the possibility of drawing fines was added to the lottery: For every thirty winning numbers there was to be one requiring payment of a fine. People who did not participate in the lottery came to be scorned as mean-spirited. When some people refused to pay the fines (from which winners were paid), nonpecuniary awards and penalties were added, such as jail sentences. When the stakes were raised, excluding the poor, there were riots. This led to reforms that removed the necessity of even having to buy tickets: Everyone had to participate. Similarly, cash prizes were eliminated; instead, winners could be elevated to the highest reaches of the Company that ran Babylon, while losers could be sentenced to death.

At the time when I read it back in the Motherland, the story seemed a perfect metaphor of socialism, where money is replaced with the government system of non-monetary rewards and punishment, with mandatory participation for all.

Now terrorism aided by political correctness has added a whole new dimension to this story. And it still involves a socialist principle of government distributing awards and punishments, requiring a mandatory consent from all residents.

In both cases, it's a game of chance completely divorced from losing or winning on your own merits, by making individual choices.

[W]inners could be elevated to the highest reaches of the Company that ran Babylon, while losers could be sentenced to death.

Isn't sacrificing oneself for the greater kollektiv good the ultimate prize?

Red Square wrote: At the time when I read it back in the Motherland, [Borges'] story seemed a perfect metaphor of socialism, where money is replaced with the government system of non-monetary rewards and punishment, with mandatory participation for all.

Now terrorism aided by political correctness has added a whole new dimension to this story. And it still involves a socialist principle of government distributing awards and punishments, requiring a mandatory consent from all residents.

In both cases, it's a game of chance completely divorced from losing or winning on your own merits, by making individual choices.

Indeed, it sounds a bit like Obamacare, no? -- except that Obamacare does extract money from the players -- which, I hasten to add, is a Good Thing.

In any case, I am puzzled about this "diversity" part of the diversity lottery. If the goal is diversity, why are the recipients of the prizes so monolithic?

And no, no, I am not questioning our wise leaders! I am merely trying to obtain the korrekt talking points for indoctrinating explaining to The Children.™

RedDiaperette wrote:In any case, I am puzzled about this "diversity" part of the diversity lottery. If the goal is diversity, why are the recipients of the prizes so monolithic?

And no, no, I am not questioning our wise leaders! I am merely trying to obtain the korrekt talking points for indoctrinating explaining to The Children.™

'Diversity™' is the publicly-stated goal, one with which the antirevolutionary RethugliKKKans cannot argue effectively. If The Children™ ask, they should be told that Muslim-Americans™ are grotesquely underrepresented in our society, so more must be imported encouraged to immigrate to correct the imbalance and thus increase Diversity™.

And then the insolent little snot-nosed bastard whoever had the temerity to ask a question should be reported and transferred to the nearest gulag Special Education™ classes immediately.