4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
26d ago
Why does it matter for purposes of determining whether a "genocide" of Indians is going on whether an Indian woman is made to have fewer children in India, or whether she is shipped to the US and then made to have fewer children there? Would you consider it less genocidal of US Whites if the same numbers (so something like 100 million?) that is currently enticed to move into diverse US cities and goes on to have lower TFR there instead were enticed to move to India and died childless over there?
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
26d ago
From a quick look, Springfield, OH housing prices look about the same as those in any small northeast US metro area I've seen, and well within the margin of what one can afford with a $20-30k/year salary.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
27d ago
The stories that are commonly related as evidence of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans all involve mass murder, though (Srebrenica etc.); the usability of Yugoslavia as evidence for natural usage of the term is also further complicated by a fat US foreign policy goal thumb on the scale (compare to how the media would even have evacuation of orphaned children from captured parts of Ukraine by Russia count as genocide).
State-subsidized relocations into areas drive housing prices up and wages down (along with all sorts of other first and second order effects) and the state subsidized part makes it literally impossible for the native population to compete.
What's a concrete example of an area that you believe was ethnically cleansed in this fashion?
Thanks for the citation. It's a bit of a rough read, being a working paper (which also means it has not fully gone through peer review), but if I read it correctly, Table 5 suggests that with sufficient controls, diversity drives down other races' birth rates by at least about as much and in many cases more (Blacks, East Asians) than those of Whites. This makes your gloss of it rather tendentious. Who is being genocided here again?
(Assuming the rest of the paper is sound, I would take it as evidence for a more general point along the lines of "diversity drives down birthrates".)
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
27d ago
The degree to and way in which they shape the world is also mediated by your own country's government. You could vote for a government that would show transatlanticists the door, which would significantly reduce American influence over your life, or for one that is willing to play hardball with them and extract concessions rather than being completely deferential, which may give you more influence over American governance than a vote in the US would (especially if you live in a small but important country with a more representative political system).
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
27d ago
Foreigners drive down native birth rates. Diversity drives down White birth rates.
[citation needed]
The lowest birth rates are found in very homogeneous countries such as South Korea and Japan. In spite of all its diversity, the US white (non-hispanic) birth rate is still greater than that of comparatively homogeneous countries like (much richer) Norway or (barely) (much poorer) Hungary. What gives?
"Diluting" seems like a more accurate and value-neutral verb.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
27d ago
Calling that ethnic cleansing is similarly wrong, and for what it's worth the Wikipedia article on it does not seem to contain the word "cleansing". I googled for the combination of the two terms, and the first two relevant-seeming hits I found are from Quora and some book on Amazon containing wording such as
The Irish were simply to be pushed off to poorer, less desirable parts, in a sort of early version of ethnic cleansing.
and
It was, beyond doubt, ethnic cleansing, but not of the worst kind because the Irish were made to leave rather than killed on spot.
If anyone thinks that it was ethnic cleansing on the basis that the Irish were forced out of the most desirable locations in favour of the Britons (so it was... ethnically cleansing the best parts of Ireland only?), I guess that's fair, but this is a premise that is also not present in the US immigration case - there is no forcing of the current population to relocate to less desirable areas, and in fact the new immigrants tend to cluster in the least desirable ones.
When progressives fail in their goals, they don't admit defeat. They write it off, avoid mentioning it again and may even pretend it was never their idea... unless they hold onto it and try to bring it up again later on. When they win, they just write the history to make it seem inevitable.
This seems to be what would happen by default for any long-lived political movement that is actually winning enough that the losses on objectives that don't get dismissed in the churn can be written off as an exception in the style of "unless they hold onto it and try to bring it up again later on". Do modern Christians admit the end of witch trials as a defeat? What about Mormons and polygamy? Outside of an edgy fringe, are US conservatives admitting defeat on their erstwhile goal of preventing women's suffrage?
I don't quite understand what would even be the intended purpose of getting progressives to own alcohol prohibition and eugenics and "admit defeat" on those goals.
- Are you suggesting that they still secretly believe in those goals, and just don't want to say them out loud in order to not reveal that they stand for unpopular and discredited ideas? (That would be a bold claim.)
- Are you hoping for them to have an epiphany that the progressive hivemind previously ordered them to fight for things that they now know were bad, and realise that this might be happening again? (Useless without persuading them that they themselves and past progressives actually took marching orders from a progressive hivemind, as opposed to fighting for what they themselves believe to be right.)
- Is it just a base desire to associate your outgroup with losing in order to lower their status? (On brand for politics, but off brand for what this forum strives to be.)
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
28d ago
I don't think the native blue tribers I have met in the US would actually be bothered by their kids being gay; to the extent this sentiment still existed it was confined to first-generation immigrants. Any objection to their own kids going trans is probably not about not getting grandkids either, considering that this is a culture that increasingly isn't even convinced to have kids of their own. Rather, the crux is that people are not actually convinced that transitioning is predetermined and makes their kids happy, despite outwards pressure to subscribe to this view. Few people have nagging doubts that gays are at least as happy as straights.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
I figure that a lot of people on the anti-refugee side do not actually recognise any "rights of people with a legitimate claim to asylum", and think of asylum as a privilege rather than a right. An acceptance regime that produces false negatives is therefore not perceived as anything like robbing people of their rights.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
In a policy-oriented, non-tribal democracy, the "male" mode seems better for reflecting voter preference: everyone can vote for the candidate that agrees with their beliefs and values, with no worries that the rug will be pulled after the election as the candidate does a 180. In a tribalised or one-party democracy where elections are not decided on policy, what you call the "female" mode seems better: the majority policy preferences will at least be approximately realised at the "winning candidate does whatever is popular" stage.
In concrete terms, imagine if 90% of Americans were against open borders, but there are 53% of voters who will vote Democrats no matter what. Would you rather Democratic leadership does the masculine thing and stand on the principle of open borders because they determined this is correct, or they yield to what is popular?
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
I don't think that this is what "steelman" usually means, unless you are actually trying to imply that statements "we were literally on the cusp of world peace" are the most defensible version of the case for Trump. That would mean the case for Trump is really rather indefensible, which lends credence to "all dumb Trump supporters".
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
Why would we need that, considering for example that this far more overbearing paean by a fairly established account is sitting at +24 a bit further down? We are evidently in Poe's Law territory ether way.
I think there is an underlying understanding that many people (including some of the direct replies you got here) are already personally convinced that significant amounts of fraud happened, and their belief in it is so strong that any amount of American institutions investigating and finding that no fraud happened will not decrease their belief in the fraud so much as it will greatly increase their belief that the institutions have lost their integrity. If that is the case, the best way to regain the trust of those people is to make heads roll - that is, instead of organising an investigation that finds no fraud, organise an investigation that finds (significant, but perhaps not at the level of actually overturning the results) fraud, identify a perpetrator or group of perpetrators, and make a show of punishing them severely. This would be more effective the more this perpetrator could serve as an effigy of the outgroup. Life in prison for a single easily mockable overweight Democratic Party apparatchik transwoman would have gone a long way to restore faith in institutions in many Deplorables, and if that person did in fact perform election fraud it would not even be unjust under the standard American understanding of justice.
I do personally find it unlikely that there were no instances of fraud that this sort of spectacle could have been pulled off with. Surely, among the tens or hundreds of thousands of volunteers who are many standard deviations above the general public in terms of political engagement, and the many entities engaged in the counting process, there must be some place where someone with terminal TDS decided that the unique dangers of Trump weigh heavier than the sacred precepts of the system and decided to throw out or reshuffle some ballots while nobody unsympathetic was looking. That no official investigation seems to have turned up even one small fish of this type to crucify does indicate to me that the involved institutions may have prioritised not being seen as giving comfort to Trump over either fact-finding or public peace.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
If you think this needs explaining, then why do you not think that Trump's 74,223,975 total votes need explaining as well? You can weave the same sort of just-so story of how that outcome is implausible, with the same sort of emotional incredulity - how did an incumbent candidate who achieved so little of what he had promised to do and stumbled from scandal to scandal manage to attract some 10 million more voters than the first time around, and also blaze past Obama's record? Unless you are contending that the forces of election manipulation also conjured up millions (but fewer) fake votes for Trump for good reason, you are just left claiming a convenient cutoff point where your candidate's unprecedented increase in support is still low enough to be normal but his opponent's is high enough to be evidence of foul play.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
You can't just claim everything to be a step onto a slippery slope without evidence and/or concrete arguments. There are plenty of instances in world politics of actors doing a particular thing with ease and not proceeding to attempt every other action that is somewhat similar to it: the US rolled over Iraq but did not proceed to invade Iran, the Russians waltzed within something like 30km of Georgia's capital and then just turned around and went home, ...
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
I was taking "Biblical levels of destruction" to be defined in terms of the vibes of the best pictures you can cherry-pick, rather than any concrete data-based criteria. The Bible itself may not have pictures, but it certainly doesn't make its case with data.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
I think the real complaint is not that the Federal response has been unusually slow, but that it is insufficient for the "Biblical" levels of destruction. Thousands of dead bodies, "4 Reefer Trucks" full in one county, everyone who is asking for donations asks for more body bags because they keep running out.
Where does this figure come from? The latest news reports I can find are still talking about a figure of 200something dead, which includes the area of initial landfall.
Really, I'm wondering where this perception of "biblical proportions" is coming from. Central Europe (approximately next door from me) had a flood around the same time which looked about equally bad to the NC pictures I'm seeing, where the death toll stood around 24. A factor of 10 difference just seems to be about what I'd expect given the lower level of preparation, inferior civic infrastructure and construction standards in the US (typical European houses would be much less likely to collapse), and the European flood is now being filed away as a fairly boring once-in-a-few-years event (outside of media that is still trying to make culture war hay of it).
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
Do you have any evidence that capacity for independent thinking is lower in your outgroup than your ingroup? If not, you are just guilty of a flipped version of the same thing that the parent accused them off, with "free critical thinkers vs. NPCs" taking the place of the "smart pro-science liberals vs. chud knuckledraggers" one.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
An IDF soldier can go toe to toe with just about any soldier in the world except the Americans and maybe the British on a good day.
Where is the evidence that the Americans or the British are particularly effective soldiers? They haven't fought a war that didn't amount to clicking targets on a screen in a context of absolute air superiority for over half a century. In a 1v1 setting like paintball with real guns, I'd bet on the average Russian, Ukrainian or even North Korean (assuming they get to eat full meals for a month prior) soldier, and, yes, of course on an average Israeli one, over the average American.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
A surprising amount of women's clothing does not come with pockets of sufficient size to store anything like a wallet, so they need to pack necessities manually before every trip based on need and available storage. This could be anything ranging from a handbag to the minimally-sized pocket of a tight-fitting piece of pants that might at most fit a few loose cards, which encourages keeping the ID card as a loose item to be tracked and brought explicitly.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
It's challenging when one of the four only eats french fries.
I'm always curious how kids wind up being this sort of extreme picky eaters. At what age and how did the tendency start? Is it just that you don't normally see it as enough of a problem to force it out of it, or would the kid literally starve itself to death if you refused to make french fries available?
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
Per the Montreux convention, Turkey gets to block warships of warring parties without itself being a party to the war. If the US had to apply its Mediterranean air superiority to prevent Russia from reinforcing the BSF, they would have to (threaten to) directly fire on the Russians, which would let the Russians feel like they have license to shoot down US drones over the Black Sea, which would still be very detrimental to UA. Any attempt to claim that a naval blockade in international waters is not in fact an act of war would bite the US in the ass over Taiwan, as China could start that one sooner than the US argument could be memoryholed.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1mo ago
The difference between the scenario I outlined and the most clichéd Mother Brain story you can come up with does not seem particularly relevant in my eyes - of course humans cause any bad outcome in either case, per a simple but-for causality test, because humans could collectively stop doing technology and then we would neither get "make step-by-step instruction for killbots" AI nor the "believes it is a god and can put its money where its mouth is" AI. In the same vein, I'd say some Australopithecus's decision to reproduce caused every bad outcome we experienced and will experience - though probably you have a different view of causality that privileges "full-fledged humans" in some way, so another entity's causal "responsibility" can't flow through them. Either way, I don't see how whether one sees the potentially doombringing AI as an agent with feelings has any influence on whether one should be concerned about AI doom and what one should do about it. P-zombie AIs build the same killbots and respond to the same interventions.
The Xwitter claim does not check out for me. Journalists continue being utterly addicted to it, and I also recall them being unconditionally defensive up until the point of the Musk takeover (which they resisted and continue to resist). If they wanted it destroyed, surely they should have supported it at the time, as it was foreseeable that it would make it less influential and make a future ban easier.
More options
Context Copy link