Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Any person who supports persecuting people likes to portray his outgroup as paranoid delusionals while dong so.
I don't buy in the self description of liberals who hostile the right and claim to be moderate neutrals.
De Boer is not an outside participant neither, but like many people saying that stuff, someone who dislike right wingers and openly says he agrees with 90% of the woke.
Fundamentally leftists who dislike right wingers and have some heterodoxies, are both denying and supporting the persecution of the right by an establishment that they are much more friendly towards than the neutral observers they try to portray themselves as.
I wouldn't consider leftists who support the left persecuting the right and oppose right wingers opposing thier persecution, or even acknowledging it, as sufficiently distinct with other leftists who claim that the right is actually persecuting the left.
Both the claim that the left and its tribes are persecuted, and that the right, and whites, conservatives aren't persecuted are wrong.
I understand it is convenient for the left to dismiss through claimed both sidesism, the persecution of the right, but it lacks intellectual merit, and is an example of the problems of how partisanship can breed extremism and denial of reality.
I also highly dislike on any faction, the postmodernist irrationalist dismissal of valid ways of discourse. In general this is lacking intellectual merit and promotes sophistry and postmodernist irrationality. Of course, it is presumptuous to assume that any groups claims are false, or true by default. Which can include complaints of mistreatment.
People who have valid reasons to distrust others because they are out to get them, and people who don't but have a continuous culture of doing just that because such culture has given them gains can get things wrong too. The later far more than a first. Plus, in an election, you are going to get people who interpret things through bias.
There is a journolist. There is both coordination, owners of media who fire employees who don't push the line, and journalists, and a lot of groupthink and conformism and people in the hivemind going along with their bias. Not to mention any influence of intelligence services and intelligence agents including of Israeli intelligence officers. There are networks, donors, and a lot more where the direction is comprehensible.
The bias and influence moves in certain directions, and it isn't a direction that is only for the Democrats. It is possible influential zionists might want Trump to win, for example.
It is more messy than just everything being an anti-right wing plot, but on the general sense, the rightist claim is correct based on the facts and that is dismissed by people who are against the right wingers and motivated by such opposition like De Boer. Significant credit must be given to right wing skepticism and opposition towards those who genuinely are hostile to them. While treating them as paranoid and delusional, and demanding they accept that it isn't happening, is a demand that is actually indecent.
You correctly have a problem with the conservatives for failing at being conservatives (they are also so far to the left they fail at being moderate) but then then you decide to vote for labour under an expectation that Starmer would be a moderate. I am sorry but I find that highly unlikely considering what labour politicians are advocating and the history of both labour and Torry governance after Tony Blair. Plus, how other promised moderates like Biden have ruled. A Starmer rule will at best be a continuation of the Torries, and therefore not moderate, or probably more likely, will result in the blatant woke elements that Labour has bringing Britain into even a further left direction than they were even under the Torries. The Torries who also brought things in a considerably farther left direction under their rule.
I mean, very possible. For me voting Labour was indeed a bit of a throw of the dice. Even ignoring their policies - and there are some good ones in there I think - my suspicion is that they will do better simply becase they have more competence, more ideas, more vigour. Britain's primary problem is stagnation, and a stagnant government doesn't solve that. But if Labour do fail, and the Tories come back in 2029 with a bit of sincerity, a bit of talent, and a goddamn plan this time, well then brilliant. If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying. Certainly the Tories were never going to improve until they got a punch in the mouth like they got today.
The Torries might earn your vote in 2029 and be convincing to you, but why would they rule well? You complained that they weren't conservative but now you claim they might come back with a bit sincerity and competence. Why would that happen? Seems more likely they will act sincere, convince you and fail to deliver again. I don't see a good reason for them to change their stripes, when promising to be conservative and competent and not delivering is what they have done so consistently. The lack of competence has something to do with the assumed competent but not actually competent, mixture of ideologies and priorities of the kind of politicians labeled "moderate", or "neoliberals".
A bit like communism was the darling of people who loved the idea of technocracy and strongly associated with technocracy but was actually a disastrous and incompetent mess.
It isn't hard to see various plastic surgery transformations and to conclude that both the patient and plastic surgeons completely ruined the appearance of the patient.
There are also plenty examples that don't fit into this.
Some level of subjectivity is part and parcel of everything important that can be dictated by the law. There really isn't a way to escape from the necessity of having people make correct judgements in all such cases, which includes not interfering where they shouldn't.
Which if bad examples are used as deterrent, can be most of the time, including in cases where it is simply too subjective. Absent any control, you get a system with abuses. So there should be skepticism and accountability towards regulatory authorities, and opposition and demand to replace them if they get things wrong but this idea that no judgement is a good principle and letting plastic surgeons do as they please, won't work.
The most notorious case where this perspective breaks down is with mentally ill people who want surgical procedures which harm their bodies such as self mutilation. Like the people among others who think their actual limbs aren't there, and they should remove them.
The risk vs benefit of swimming pools vs opiates is far different. Swimming pools don't give you cities where part of the place is taken by drug zombies. It is relativism to act as if they are comparable. And so it goes for many things. There is a line to be taken, and refusing to support a line ends up with predictable large problems. Because you can in fact have a society of different levels of corruption and harmful behavior.
You aren't really encountering in this thread safetyism purity spiral supporters. There isn't a sufficient negative to swimming pools, even if a small percentage of people using them and having fun swimming (and improving cardiovascular health possibly in doing so), end up drowning.
An important point to mention, is also as the ancient Greeks, Romans, Christians, and others understood, and through continuity through the ages wise people understood, is the problem of people being enslaved to their passions. The drug addict not only harms his health, but is fundamentally not a free man. This is also bad for the group as a whole since from a collective point of view, such behaviors degenerate society.
It isn't an accident that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is so identified with the modern Satanist movement. Even from a secular perspective, it tells you something that this is the philosophy of a movement that adopts the symbol and name of evil and sin, in accordance to the dominant religion of western civilization. The attempt of inversion of morality, leads predictably to an immoral code that harms civilization.
You simply ban plastic surgery that could be reasonably expected to worsen the patient. Which includes worsening their aesthetics to a substantial enough degree. And then you revoke the licenses of doctors doing this. Of course you apply this to the trans issue too. This should apply in general. With sufficiently harmful procedures, you also criminally prosecute the people undertaking them for harming their patients.
So, if you are a rich guy, and even if not, and want to spend your money on hair transpant, trt, plastic surgery, you should be able to, provided that the operation will actually improve you. Or at least, not harm you. Although public funds should prioritize medical needs. With TRT the health side effects are such that it should be restricted until you reach people of sufficiently old age and low testosterone where it might be good for them.
So it should be allowed if it improves the patient and if rich people spend more on it, then that is fine.
If it worsens the patient, to an understandable degree, then it doesn't matter if they want it, and there is someone willing to provide it. It should not be allowed. Including restricting harmful drugs. Allowing some room for subjectivity and gray areas, and lack of knowledge though. Also, to take into consideration risk before surgery and whether if things go wrong is because it was foreseeable, or statistically it would happen over a large enough tries.
I replied that it would make sense to ban plastic surgery for minors, and that Tennessee would certainly have the power to do so, and that I'd support a total ban except in cases of extreme deformities. How would you define extreme deformity, she shot back. Well, I guess you'd need a doctor to certify it. Gotcha, she said, that wouldn't stop Kylie or her parents for a second, they'd have crooked Armenian doctors on tap anywhere they needed them.
I mostly agree.
The "it can't be stopped" is defeatist cope that can be applied on anything. The reality is that enforcement gains or loses ground and an attitude like this gives ground. It is the pro criminal fallacy that "if I don't do it, someone else will" of a corrupt society. In this case "If they don't do it, others will". The more people buy into this, the more you find your society captured by crooks.
Armenian doctors might be less likely to do such procedures than American doctors and if American doctors were unwilling to do this, then it is more likely that it might not have happened, or happened less.
Plus, certain MENA societies provide a case study in how you can have a resilient social order where the majority of women disappear into the harems of rich men and the majority of men are left sexless - these may not be pleasant places to live, but the society is capable of reproducing itself all the same.
Can you point to the specific examples of the MENA societies you are referring to? What you are saying sounds like a gross exaggeration for contemporary MENA societies. Even in Saudi Arabia, polygamy is somewhat rare and marriage rate is high relatively, although the first website cites a misleading stat. The more relevant one is:
Within the age category where women traditionally got married in Muslim majority countries, 25-34, the rate of unmarried females reached 43 percent while for men it was almost half that at 23 per cent.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200810-66-of-young-saudis-are-single/, https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/165994
So funnily enough the site claiming 66% young saudis including 15 years to 34 years old to are single also claims that from 25-34 year old men only 23% are unmarried.
Islamic societies are mostly monogamous societies. I am not aware of any example of a society were most women disappear into the harems of rich men and the majority of men are left sexless.
It is a transparently bad idea that is both bad for the people involved and not sustainable. MENA societies with all the things one could criticize them aren't that bad. This is more of a fantasy dystopia.
I am on team predicting that the bigger issues will first come due to malevolent human intelligence that already have centralized too much power utilizing AI to gain even more power and influence and reduce the independence and rights of broader population groups and impose their agenda to them. As for AGI, that is for the future. We shouldn't neglect the risk of those who control the AI and maybe want to shut down competition since it is a more pressing and less hypothetical problem.
I agree that spreading such pictures around could reasonably be considered bullying and I would be fine for schools to punish it. Even in a university setting this applies.
I would also say that there ought to be different standards to "normal figures" and celebrities, focusing now on adults. Or else you are going to be putting a lot of people in prison for creating and if done in a discord server therefore automatically spreading over discord nudes that look like celebs. Another issue is where you draw the line. For example is a generated picture were it is said to be looking like a celebrity something that is going to qualify? One other facet of this is that celebrities become to an extend the faces of our image of attraction.
On the other hand, even celebrities deserve to not have their reputation be perceived based on the AI model, and someone pretending that such AI generated content represents them. There is also a moral question regarding commercialization that is a bigger issue than a random creating a voice model based on Obama, Scarlet, Trump, etc to play around and spreading it in smaller platforms. Such as the dispute about whether Sam Alatman used Scarlet Joghansson's voice for his AI tool. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/22/scarlett-johansson-sam-altmans-washington-00159507
On Monday night, Scarlett Johansson — who famously voiced an AI in the movie Her — alleged that OpenAI had appropriated her voice without permission for a new AI assistant tool. Altman and OpenAI say the voice belonged to a different actress,
Do you think that Jews ought to compromise themselves at all in regards to Jewish identity politics that can be anti christian and anti european? Or is it only on the other side to be tolerant?
For example, they should oppose laws that enforce a story of Jews as oppressed and European Christians as oppressors, and in fact support institutions promoting a narrative that does include some criticism of Jews for their contributions to far left extremism, and antiwhite movement.
It isn't really a complicated issue. There are Jews who are an asset to the right like Stephen Miller who tend to have an identity that encompasess more than the Jewish one. And Jews who do have resentment towards right wingers and Europeans and strong Jewish identity, do exist aplenty, and are not caused by insufficient appeasement, since there is ever abudance of the appeasing right.
Only a minority of Jews are such in their ideology and behavior that it would be wise to accept them. Neocons for example are a subversive force on the right. However, this can theoretically change.
Ironically, Jews would have assimiliated more, if organizations like ADL, WJC, etc, etc were banned. And in fact, Jewish support of multiculturalism and anti-european identity politics and intersectionality is in part related to the more radical Jews wanting the Jews not to assimiliate to whiteness.
Anyway, both Jews as a pattern and non Jewish pro Jewish types, are not even handed people only opposing antisemitism, but are highly biased to an extend that could be described as Jewish supremacist. And paint as antisemitism things through that lense. It would be both moral in general from a more unviersalist point of view, but also good in regards to the right and European-Jewish relations, and more friendship, for Jews and those promoting pro jewish narratives, to water down their wine. To compromise. To accept their own sins, instead of doing the narcisist manifesto.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Avoiding the narcisist manifesto, does not make them self hating.
When Amy Wax claimed that her father was unduly too critical towards Christians, that wasn't self hateful.
And on much of the right they will find people who are going to accomodate them and aren't going to be promoting some demand of maximalist self hating dogma. The Jews who enjoy a positive reputation among the kind of right that doesn't like Shaprio aren't just Unz, but plenty of non self hating Jews but who have compromised on level of seperate jewish identity politics and do see the interests of europeans as legitimate and identify with a broader category rather than seeing them as a hostile other.
Of course, the issue is that laws currently promoted are Jewish supremacist in nature. And those who support that.
Another issue, is that if you got some hateful Jewish supremacists pushing their agenda, that is going to inflame the passions and anger on the other side. Just like Jews who have compromised and are more moderate and friendly towarsd the right incentivize a more positive reactions.
One's ideology in regards to nativism, immigration, AA and such issues is of course fundamental. And whether a Jew in a european country identifies as being part of that group and sees them as his people.
Jews claiming to be right wing who still retain sufficiently strong liberal views on such issues and are motivated by seperate ethnic identity are going to be treated with more suspicion. And even if their liberal views are somehow unrelated to their Jewish identity, they are a problem. Like I said, neocons should be reasonably excluded because of having sufficiently different and hostile ideology, and have a history of cancelling actual right wingers and conservatives for being insuficiently liberal on racial, and other issues. And more so especially for being insufficiently subservient to Jews and making any criticisms.
Sailer also wrote a short post after the issue discussed critical of the Israel lobby that the uncomrpomising Jewish identitarians wouldn't have promoted. So I wouldn't consider him the same as those types. More of a positive force than a negative. https://www.unz.com/isteve/not-getting-the-joke-2/
Which doesn't make this good article https://keithwoods.pub/p/protestantism-jews-and-wokeness arguing against his thesis a bad thing. Even those who are sufficiently a positive force to not gatekeep them out can promote bad ideas, which would be good to debate and counter.
Anyway, excessive compromise in pro female, pro jewish, pro black, etc direction is a key part of our current situation. This isn't to say purity spiralling in the opposite direction is correct, but appeasement is the wrong move and having those who are excessive pro jewish, pro female, etc, etc compromise is correct in general, but especially for the right. The right will become indistinquishable with the left in fundamental issues, if it listens to women and Jews and LGBT Republicans and pro migration types and pro black types arguing for more appeasement. More compromise. Laws giving their favorite groups preferential treatment. And there is a connection with appeasement to one, leading to appeasement to all and the same intersectional story. While painting anything but that as antisemitic, misogynistic, anti black, racist, etc, etc.
The right has compromised too much in these directions, is losing its own identity as a right and moving too far to the left in the process and needs to fix this overreach and not increase it.
Jews wanting to be a part of the right have an even bigger moral obligation than Jews in general to water down their wine, and compromise from the more extreme positions typical in Jewish community that are part of a progressive Jewish nationalist narrative of Jews as always oppressed, always in the right against especially a European Christian historical, present, and possibly future oppressor. Some level of admitting fault is not only accurate but necessary because if Jews are progressive as a pattern, and as Prager says "the conscience of humanity" why oppose the ADL, and the activities of those Jews who do see with hostility european christian civilization? Since Jews didn't do nothing wrong, then they were correct to be leftists under this perspective and only reacting to "antisemitism" under this false narrative. So why oppose the current leftist trajectory? That compromise I mentioned towards a more moderate position and having a stronger broader identity that sees European rightists as your people would also make it justifiable for European rightists to accept such Jews.
Great post.
In the past children played more often by being outside and interacting with other children which helped them to develop social skills. Of course that had its own trade offs.
or would “playfully” act out military drills, etc.
Yes, and girls could playfully act like mothers using dolls, which helped adapt them to becoming mothers later on.
- It would be much better if they felt boredom, because the longterm displeasure from technology outweighs the temporary adaptive pleasure of boredom. (And this isn’t even going into studies on “wakeful rest” and the default mode network where boredom is shown to be healthy to the mind…)
Yes, this is the whole dichotomy between hedonism and becoming a slave of one's passions vs greater pleasure issue that as old as the ancient Greeks and probably older has always been a challenge for societies. Now far more so of course. Ideally there is moderation rather than no use of say video games, mobile games. But things are out of hand today, and that does have something to do with technological moneygrubbers.
Steve Sailer sometimes says that modern marketing departments are too effective. Under modern capitalism which is more efficient at getting consumers to buy stuff, the consumer rather than a rational actor, can't compete and is too easily manipulated. Children being even more vulnerable. This can also apply to the food industry where the people's best interest is different and conflicts with their hedonistic desires and the marketing department, developers of food that want to make it hyper palatable. There is also an ideological component to this which is about not only favoring the monetary interests of the "technological moneygrubbers" but also those who prefer the population to be pacified and at such not a threat to the ruling elite.
Technology it self provides more challenges, in addition to issues of ideology. I don't buy into the progressive myth that changes necessarilly improve society. Good things to work well, do so due to a delicate balance requiring various things necessary. Ideally we use technology to only get the good while mitigating the bad, but it doesn't work that way. The problem is that even people like me who want to fix things are not going to make it so society doesn't have the technology that it has now, and is technologically the same to the type of society that resulted in quite different childhoods.
One thing is true. For how much Internet, television, mobile phones give, they also take away things. More so now with Artificial Intelligence which is very woke/progressive intersectionalist, giving much greater power to those who designed it and leading to a more centralized world, unless enough other players like GAB AI start appearing.
Also, this point is directed less towards you but it is obviously possible for a society to be more powerful due to technology and its people living a more depraved existence.
War Communism might in fact be far more powerful way to conduct war than a society that doesn't treat its people like slaves, but it is a very shitty way to live.
If this was a Bush/Romney Republican, this wouldn't have happened. The Republicans haven't gone after Democrat politicians, so that is also something to consider. They also aren't the only ones part of designing it.
And of course under your scenario, the spirit of the law that isn't violated when persecuting gangs is violated when getting Trump over this.
Through loopholes you can create a dictatorship out of any democracy and can abuse any system. And so, when such loopholes are abused, you either blame those who abuse them and oppose it, or promote a theory of leopards eating face, if you support the process of abusing the law to get your opponents. Any justice system to work well, requires respecting the spirit of the law, because you can manage to get a lot of people with technicalities, and by abusing the system. No system is so designed as to be infallible to that. There is always something one can find as an excuse if they support a transformation of the system into that.
Ironically, in addition to tit for tat, ideally towards actual crimes done by dem politicians as a deescalating force, to the extend liberals have such attitudes, it is actually justifiable and not just going after ones opponent to consider if people with such ideology are going to abuse their position as judges, bureaucrats, etc, etc. And even people like journalists, academics, have their own enormous influence that is going to affect everything. For the right, protecting the integrity of the system, and not letting their political opponents dominate it and abuse it then become interchangeable. For liberals, the opposite claim is not actually justifiable. Precisely because the right not only haven't prosecuted liberals over BS, but also have failed to prosecute more clear misconduct. And it is precisely that appeasement and sense of no consequences that has encouraged the liberal side into escalating.
I was under the impression that Kulak, like most people with avatars of attractive women online, is actually a man.
I won't be able to fully address everything here. I do appreciate that your response wasn't as heated as it could had been.
I would like to focus on a minor point which is that those countries that are part of a western alliance, to remain in that isn't a bad thing necessarily if USA fixes its ideological issues and doesn't push destructive demands. Indeed, what I advocate still allows room for a saner than today USA as the strongest power. Chinese and Russian ambitions can also be destructive towards other countries, like their neighbors.
An attempt by the USA for worldwide full spectrum dominance or expanding spheres of influence has had too much a destructive path already, and will continue to do so in the future. So, when I argue for multipolarism is a different thing than when the Russians or Chinese do, for in their advocation includes them having a license to expand their sphere of influence.
When for me, is about trying to retain a status quo that avoids invasions, and avoids trying to coup and dismember countries like China, and Russia, or pushing too much propaganda about them being illegitimate regimes. There is a situation where such powers try to trade and seek more win-win diplomatic paths, and one where they try to undermine each other and prepare for hotter conflict.
Anyway, while you might believe that one country dominating will lead to global peace, the position of Europe since this conflict has been a worsening one, precisely as they became more dependent to USA. The reality is any power dominating gives it more opportunity for abuse. Including promoting extreme ideologies. Although, abuse of bigger powers in alliances or even among expected protectorates does result in them seeking to disentangle themselves. UK arrests far more people for their speech than Russia does, which matters when evaluating the current trajectory of western demcoracies. Most importantly, for USA to get global hegemony and the desirable peace, and to humiliate and keep down its rivals, far more war and conflict will have to ensue, including as in Syria possible civil war within Russia and China. I don't buy that an agenda that raises risk of WW3 and nuclear war is a good way to achieve peace. Nor did the conflicts that USA was involved in the middle east, did any good of the people there. It is in fact likely, that rather than peace, the attempt for worldwide hegemony will lead to similiar misfortune for those affected, and even not succeed at providing American hegemony, but waste blood and treasure. So avoiding both expanding moves like that, and what we already saw such as with the Iraq war, Syrian war and funding the rebels, etc, etc.
The arrangement of trying to deescalate tensions where the onus isn't just on the USA and the Chinese and Russians also have their own responsibility, seems like a much better bet.
Of course in practice, global powers are going to do their proxy conflicts, and part of that will include both influences of lobbies and the struggle relating to expanding spheres of influence, and at best this can be mitigated and reduced, but too idealsitic to expect it to stop. I do think that things have escalated and things can be put in a healthier equilibrium. And it really is completely unrealistic and putting lipstick to a process of great power competition, to talk of peace and the morality of continuous hegemony. It is a bit like the communists promoted this idea that it would be the defeat of capitalism, imperialism and great if they took over the world. Like colonialism had its white man's burden, we also now had in the case of pro american imperialism, narratives promising peace. Prior to the soviet utopian dream, the Russians promoted this idea of them as protectors of Christians against the Ottomans to jsutify expanding, and both Russia and USSR promoted this idea of them as protectors of slavs. Narratives are going always to exist to defend moves in the great chess game, which on the meantime can destabilize countries and can lead to the harm even of the involved great powers through conflict, and not just the destruction of the region that is fought.
Doesn't this betray the point of allowing different systems?
What determines the nation's values considering your hypothetical? Since such values might need to be established and maybe through time a system with condemned values, might perform better.
And how do you stop areas which have similar ideologies from ganging up on groups they are ideologically opposed to? Even if their way would work better, if left to their own devices.
For example, different form of antinationalists materialists (lets say socialists and pro market types), which also are more made up of certain ethnic groups, ganging up and utilizing mass migration policies in their own area and freedom of movement to help take over against an area that is more conservative, more nationalist made up of a different ethnic group because they are intolerant of this arrangement and consider it evil, fascistic, and also have some ethnic hostility towards them. Groups being offended and finding something abhorent based on their ideology is a very real possibility. This idea of military used against what is abhorent, how does it avoid the states from fighting a big ideological war> Just like the focus on ideology and countries captured by ideologies, has helped inflame antipathies and lead to real war and conflict in our own history.
Wouldn't a part that strongly identifies with an ideology, be motivated to find a way to impose it to other areas?
Actually what kind of ideologies are chosen could very well determine what ideologies dominate through such dynamics of what are the dominant similarities between them which can be different if different ideologies are chosen. Once ideologies have a foothold they would work together and evolve, not based on prediction markets, but by such ideologies finding true believers who further modify them.
My prediction of this system is that some kind of war for dominance of ideologies is more likely than some enlightened ruler disciplining this system and being easily in control, as in some videogame where you can push the slider a little to the left and a little to the right.
If progressive policies cause people to be more negatively inclined towards progressive favored "protected" groups, that doesn't mean that progressivism is perpetuating prejudice against such groups necessarily. AA would cause more suspicion bu ift people would be justifiably more suspicious of the quality of Affirmative Action hires, then that would be correct. Justifiable negativity is not prejudice. And unjustifiable positivity for one group would itself be unfair on other groups.
This force is in competition between progressivism cultivating irrational attitudes that are pro the groups benefiting from affirmative action. For example, if a group commits more crime but some people buy into a conspiracy theory that the cops and judges are just framing them, then progressivism benefits excessively this group actually. Distorting reality in its favor and at expense of other groups.
Additionally, if negativity is prejudice, then policies such as stop and frisk, are born of a society willing to be critical, suspicious and negative towards say blacks. Why isn't it prejudice then?
The prejudice against groups progressivism disfavors and in favor the groups it favors is the serious problem, and not progressivism inspiring bigotry against blacks. Actually, this idea of prioritizing the groups progressivism favors as victims of racism is part of the problem of progressivism and how it can be bigoted. Certainly it can inspire a backlashe, which if proportionate the backlash is actually the good thing and the bad thing is the problem that inspired it, and if disproprotionate, sure there might be something to criticize from that angle, focusing on the disproportionality. However, that shouldn't be the primary criticism of progressivism over it directly favoring certain groups too much, and being overly hostile towards other groups.
I challenged you directly if you think you should excuse blatantly immoral and destructive conduct under the idea that US hegemony is good. It seems to me that you want to do that and are just trying to promote it based on arguing that US hegemony is good actually. But you also say you accept restraint and criticism. And it doesn't seem that you really do in a substantial manner. How should current policy change if it means you accept that there are areas it has acted wrongly.
There are a few problems with this. Which is that destroying other countries and causing civil wars to cause more US hegemony will result in far more devastation.
And part of the peace has been because of existence of other powers and not adopting fully culturally marxist agenda. When Japan open its borders and follows more the cultural marxist agenda the result wouldn't be good for the Japanese but worse. Moreover, the existence of an other, helps restrain predation by Americans against their allies, and now seems less so.
Anyway, a USA that is against the immoral conduct of other countries, and restraints it self from instigating more trouble, will work better. Part of my solution includes a push for general deescalation that includes non Americans also doing that through negotiations and attempts to diplomacy being part of the process. I am not suggesting that the USA should stop having a military, but I do think that the neocons being highly representative of what I am critical of a criminal conduct, as a faction are removed from any influence.
When people like Bret Stephens arguing to replace the white working, this isn't good because higher GDP, because this agenda also comes along with massive redistribution, and quotas at expense of targeted group. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-30/how-corporate-america-kept-its-diversity-promise-a-week-of-big-take
The package offered by the modern GAE is also unattractive to many African countries because it comes with prioritising submission to cultural far leftist agenda. Chinese investment with less lecturing is more attractive. So, one of my alternatives is to abadon that and ideology of woke/neocon types to be abadoned. However, I don't think ideology should be absent from global politics. There is a value in certain human rights, and want those genuine rights to be protected. But the general cultural marxist conception of rights should be thrown to the garbage. And we don't need people trying indirect justifications due to GDP. It is both bad in its own right, but also alienates people who would be otherwise more positive towards USA influence.
Oh, and having a modern economy, and not aligning with American warmongering are different things. I don't want a world that doesn't trade with the USA, but one that doesn't support belligerence. Some of your rhetoric leads us to a more reductive path and makes it harder to face specific issues. Moves us away from clarity and conflates things that shouldn't be conflated. And it is anachronistic, not taking into account the massive amounts of investment that a more pro chinese aligned block is seeing.
European countries benefited much more when they traded and had more positive relations with Russia, China and USA. Being overly aligned with a neocon aggressive, arrogant USA is not a move for better economy but one were you suffer consequences at your expense. Although some protectionism is also reasonable to protect their own industries, so I am not free trade but pro trade against against trying to strongly suppress and stop trade and enact new cold wars.
In regards to American interests, there is an issue of interests of foreign lobbies, of weapon manufacturers, and of people with ideological obsessions that don't fulfill even American interests. There is also an issue of higher cost than they are worth. Much of American warmongering, has reduced American prestige, and USA can be a more credible pusher for world peace, by avoiding doing such actions, and retaining influence as the most powerful member of an actual alliance, where America treats other countries part of its alliance as allies and respects their rights. So, I genuinely think that people whose agenda is ethnically destructive are immoral on their own rights, and ironically help damage Pax Americana. They are incentivizing non Americans to correctly resist on grounds of their human rights to exist and self determination So, I would suggest you compromise and abadon trying to excuse such agendas. The cultural marxist agendas are irredeemably extreme and destructive.
This idea that with rhetoric and excuses, anything will be tolerated and people are going to accept any and all arrangements that are destructive against them, is simply not true. Hubris doesn't solve decline but accelerates it. So, a pax americana is going to rightfully end for good, or as you think for ill, if modern USA is a cultural marxist very arrogant country that has moved to a much more radical path than its previous conduct towards its allies were it was willing to compromise with the existence of nation state democracies. Indeed peace, becomes impossible under such an extreme USSA, because it promotes aggressive policy.
So, to summarize:
There is nothing wrong with an influential USA in a pro USA alliance, provided this USA avoids its substantial own bad behavior, and respects the rights of its allies which includes not trying to impose ethnically destructive and other social agendas.
There is plenty of wrong with much of American warmongering which has been destructive both economically and otherwise and it is of a different nature than countries being part of NATO or having some ties with the USA.
There is something wrong with an attempt by the USA to make the entire world aligned with it, and to succeed in destroying rival powers, will come with enormous blood and destruction.
It is better to have a multipolar world that collaborates and tries to some extend to share some principles on issues of opposing say invasions. Where good faith behavior makes it easier for principles to be taken seriously and there is more win-win entanglement. A connected world order in such ways. Trade, negotiation are key aspects of this, and there is probably a value in different blocs aligning to oppose the worst deeds of other blocs and restraining each other. So, I am not arguing here in favor of the disapperance of USA as an influential player.
Although its modern moral decline and rising extremism, is an enormous problem that needs to be corrected and not something to just dismiss. It is a massive elephant to the room of how USA became a much more radical power with its embassies promoting very extreme and destructive agenda. Although I also don't think that Russia and China with their own third world nationalist elements are an adequate solution. Cultural marxist ideology is a gigantic problem, and not part of a healthy alliance and the only solution is to be suppressed, and those elements with such ideology to not be allowed to have influence. Including outside the USA, GAE being about more than just USA. Indeed, ironically cultural marxism with its own antiwestern, anti the peoples of the alliance propaganda, helps promote Russia and China and non western countries as alternatives. Why should people support self hating west over nonwestern blocks, if they buy into this ideology? Including those outside the west? The contradictions can't be sustained by just the same tired propaganda of ww2, pretending opposition are far left, far right, promoting only the threat of Russia, and China, or claiming it is economically superior path. My conclusion, in addition to suggesting that it would be a good path for our world and the USA too, to abandon this ideology, is to note an inability for the cultural marxist GAE types to compromise. This ideological purity spiral would serve them as poorly as it served other very ideological empires which refused to compromise.
It is definitely convenient to paint anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy establishment as an extremist. It is blatantly propagandistic however and just sheer boo outgroup demagoguery.
The reality, is you are dealing with people making valid arguements, and it is actually false that these arguements and perspectives are part of a far left or far right perpective, except that they are part of perspectives of both moderates, far left, far right, whatever people. And of course outside the USA, you will find again even more so people and majority of spectrum be critical of the many immoral and against international law actions of the foreign pollicy establishment.
Ironically, the current American establishment is far more far left extremist than Jeffrey Sachs and you got plenty of people who combine far left extremism with supporting imperialism. Sachs seem more like a more timid leftist than say Joe Biden.
Moreover, this also applied during the buildup of WW2. The majority of Americans opposed involvement and also had a negative opinion of both the nazis and Stalin. Really, it was more like opposition to Iraq, Vietnam which again the driving force was not far left american haters, and it would be to strawman and negatively exaggerate people like Sachs to paint them in such colors.
The American goverment highly subverted and full of communist agents didn't just support intervention to WW2 but was massively for Stalin and helped him above and beyond to take half of Europe, when they could have followed better policy that wasn't as pro communist. The great book Stalin's wars goes more into this, showing how even after the Soviets were winning, they were prioritised to get help over even American troops and many more examples of this policy direction.
Additionally, when it comes to supporters of WW2, which changed after pearl harbor, there were those who had pretty far right views and wanted to kill the Japanese and saw them as racial enemies, or supported destroying the Germans because they saw them as enemies and were pro warcrimes. It really is overly reductive and just conveniently propagandistic to try to frame the policies taken by the state department, often highly influenced by foreign lobbies, as a moderate position that only far leftists and far rightists could oppose. This is false, and you will find people whose perspective pattern matches to far left, or far right among supporters of such foreign policy. Today, it is especially far leftists who openly see the GAE as a empire for imposing their ideology.
Skepticism of American foreign policy is widely popular because it does plenty of immoral and wrong things. It is in fact quite popular among non americans of all persuassions. And to a lesser extend it is popular among Americans and promoted by the most popular host in Tucker, because the framing that it is all for Americas interest against foreign enemies, isn't accurate when it comes to Ukraine and Israel too. There is in fact a redistribution outwards and of course in favor of the weapon manufacturers that are some of the biggest donors of think tanks. There are also foreign lobbies like the israeli lobby which support wars for self serving non pro American reasons. The America first identification of movements skeptical of American foreign policy, including by Trump in part, is not accurately captured by labeling it as far right just cause you say it is. There is validity in their perspective that interests of American people are not put first.
Now, I wouldn't argue that we need to be maximally skeptical of American foreign policy establishment and maximally apologist of non American powers. There are those like Chomsky who went too far in that direction, but certainly skepticism and opposition to the current foreign policy uniparty has many humanitarian, real politic, and other grounds to stand upon, such as seeing it leading the world towards more world war paths and can't be dismissed by booing them as extremists.
All powers need to know there will be opposition when they violate certain norms. To avoid bad behavior you need to let them know those that behave badly, and would behave worse still, that there will be opposition and hostility and consequences. Hence, why those favoring totalitarianism where certain groups are beyond criticism, and poison the waters by slandering critics are promoting something incredibly dangerous.
What are you going to do about international conflicts on which the USA plays a role at causing? Surely, you would want USA to dissuade other countries from causing trouble but be critical when USA itself causes trouble?
Do you think, we should see all the warmongering USA is responsible both in wars and including coups, funding extremist rebels as in Syria, as something that shouldn't be challenged and an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good? Because this way of thinking is exploitable and will lead to more bad behavior by the warmongering, CIA coups parts of USA.
Including those who deliberately might want conflict with other great powers so that they can be defeated and there would be American hegemony over them. If MAD is part of world peace, then that MAD includes the existence of rival powers too. Now, I don't think the way is to turn a blind eye to China, etc, but neither is to treat the American foreign policy establishment as the good guys.
I think in your model of world peace, you should not neglect to consider how American imperialist deeds, which include funding their own color revolutions/rebels should be restrained, because they actually have been the more warmongering active player around the globe.
Of course, it is also legitimate to treat the warmongering and threat of more, by non American powers as a problem.
Some part of the previous peace, relates to a different more friendly attitute of American foreign policy towards countries like Russia and China. And moreover, the fact that China was weaker, growing and not perceived as a threat while China it self also became more brazen. The Ukraine issue has been constantly debated, but certainly the Russians did have their own aggressive moves in Ukraine, in addition to the oust of their guy there from a western backed coup (with people like McCain openly supporting it). It seems to me that both the USA and the Chinese and Russians became more aggressive.
An aggressive American world dominance hegemonist perspective that seeks to dismember rival powers like Russia and China and seeks their submission as countries is itself war causing, and possibly ww3 causing. If there weren't nukes, it might have lead us there already. But international peace would require a general deescalation, not just from the USA, of course.
I very strongly disagree. There were smartphones before the iPhone, including with all sorts of applications and stylus interface over finger interface. The iPhone was the most popular smartphone and it will deserve a note on history for representing the moment that they spread, and represented an advance. But a small enough which was inevitable. As far as technological innovation goes, I am not that impressed. Still deserving praise for capturing the market though and some innovation on some features. But I wouldn't consider it sufficiently innovative to represent the definitive innovation of the 21st century. More representing the point of time that smartphones spread.
The OS was also preferable by many users over prior alternatives, and represented an inovvation, but I wouldn't call that a sufficiently impressive innovation for the praise you offered. Although definitely a great product at the right time.
ETA: Apparently a different smartphone was available in stores a month before the iPhone with a finger touchscreen interface. https://www.androidauthority.com/lg-prada-1080646/
I think he is good at what he does but not necessarily buy all the hype on any of his particular business. People like Thunderfoot have been predicting Musk to crash and burn for years. I don't believe that will happen in the future like it didn't happen so far.
Not quite. My analysis is that claims of Musk's greatness are based on his promises of delivering revolutionary new technologies that will change the world, and I'm saying these technologies are never going to be delivered. There will be no self-driving, robo-taxis, semis, bipedal robots doing manual labor for us, revolutionary new batteries, manned missions to Mars or the Moon. All of these things would make him a great man, if he managed to deliver, but he is not going to. This will also have financial consequences, because the stuff he might deliver is not going to be enough to sustain his companies, and as a result they will crash.
Probably no bipedal robots doing manual labor for us, and maybe not all of the other list, and in lesser extend. My model of Musk as successful, positive force but overpromiser, seems to fit more with his trajectory so far than the one where he crashes and burns. If the man continues being successful promoting some innovations, he can point those and keep hyping new stuff in the future too. The combo of successes + some bullshit can be sustainable.
He's being judged by the same metrics as Elizabeth Holmes or Trevor Milton, I don't think that's weird.
It isn't really fair to Musk to compare him to Elizabeth Holmes. The man has significant tangible successes.
Most of your analysis is based on economic performance and your negative opinion of how he runs his business even though he has been very successful. Frankly, since this is the culture war thread, why should I really particularly care about the fact that the guy is not the business Messiah? I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of Tesla, but I also don't think you are even particularly negative about what he is doing. So Tesla is business as usual. Ok, and? It doesn't have to be the best. I don't think there are that many blind Elon fanboys here.
The interesting issue about Musk is more twitter and his influence. Where he as usually overpromised, underdelivered, compromised with powers that be, but I would say his purchase does count as an overall net positive contribution.
Space X is also a very successful company taking parts of a role that one would expect NASA to take. Do I agree, or disagree about your specific analysis, then? Well, I didn't bother to read their financial statements, so I am not qualified. What I know is that Space X is highly innovative and even the American goverment rely on them in regards to part of what they are doing. Or with technology like Starlink.
Your analysis is more like what a random individual who made some research on the issue would provide when trying to suggest whether we should, or shouldn't buy shares on Elon's companies. I can't really answer adequately whether you are correct, or missing something, but also don't think it is something particularly important. I would probably invest in an index fund instead.
Space X, Tesla are successful endeavors even if I wouldn't tell you to buy Tesla shares. Maybe Tesla is in a bubble, but the market so far has stayed irrational more than doubters expected. Elon has a history of overpromising with whatever he does, but still delivering to an extend. Which is how I see his successful business too. The important thing is the influence of buying twitter, not whether it is profitable for Musk. So to summarize bellow Musk's general contributions:
I would say he made an important positive contribution with SpaceX. Tesla is another success story even if not necessarily in practice better than the biggest manufacturers despite its share price. Most importantly he is bellow what I wanted to see happen with twitter, but still an important net positive contribution over the alternative. I disagree with some of his takes, like supporting legal migration, but he does mostly help counter a left wing monoculture on culture war issues. In addition to allowing dissent, and highlighting some people promoting it, there is a value in high profile people promoting such views themselves. There is also a positive side to being a hypeman, even if he overpromises. He promotes a certain sci fi optimism that is missing from other billionaires, especially on space exploration. But even with his business, he helps push things in the direction of innovation. On most issues he is involved, he has made a positive contribution with all his imperfections.
I agree with your general point but lets also add some more recent culture war material.
Greta Gerwig which wrote the screenplay and directed Barbie is writing a Netflix film adaptation of first two films of Chronicles of Narnia. Considering her other films I suspect it is going to go much further than the older Disney adaptation in subverting the original material as this article persuasively argues. https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/7/28/how-barbie-shows-greta-gerwig-is-the-wrong-choice-to-direct-narnia
But I would expect even a current Disney adaptation to also go much further.
The article ends with
Lewis and his “Narnia” stories are so beloved because they took the truths of Christianity and found a way to weave them into fiction to remind us how beautiful they are. We need that now more than ever. Hopefully, once Gerwig is done with “Narnia,” someone else will adapt it who understands it better, to help recapture those truths for our society again.
I would really like to see an alternative. Maybe the people who have successfully made some level of youtube career out of condemning hated woke adaptations that disrespect the original material should pool resources together and try to create themselves some faithful adaptations, starting with less ambitious targets. The Critical Drinker who is a writer might be able to do something interesting. There is a real audience out there willing to pay for faithful adaptations, and there is money to be made. Like we have alt social media and video platforms, although it would be much more expensive, it would be nice to see an attempt for an alternative platform for tv shows and films.
If copyright is an issue, there are stories in the public domain like Ivanhoe, and more that will join them.
I am not an expert on the field but it seems that Out of Africa is becoming more controversial over the alternative that humanity evolved in different continents. There is also the idea of multiple waves of immigration out of Africa. As for the multi-regional model, in addition to evolving to different environments, part of this evolution has been also breeding with different hominid species. We simply keep finding hominids and ancient humans in regions outside of Africa that at minimum challenges the certainty of Out of Africa model.
The findings support a multiregional hypothesis, which argues that before our species left Africa for Europe, there was continuous gene flow between at least two different populations.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-first-humans-out-of-africa-werent-quite-who-we-thought
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-out-of-Africa-theory-debunked
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99257&page=1 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/ https://www.livescience.com/ancient-human-vertebra-found-israel https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evolution-theory-out-of-africa-dali-skull-china-homo-erectus-sapiens-latest-a8064306.html
Defining Greenpeace as part of traditionalism/conservatism, like Hlynkas redefinitions, moves us to a position of less understanding and unnecessary confusion.
I don't think it's a surprise that countries defined by liberalism, specifically France, treats Greenpeace the way they do.
Highly liberal USA doesn't do so. Liberal Britain is following zero carbon targets even under the Torries, who aren't a conservative party. Liberal Germany has strong Green party and anti nuclear policies. So it is false that this is due to liberalism. Rather than blaming conservatism and praising liberalism for what Greenpeace a group that liberals are more sympathetic towards, the reality is that the French are more pro nuclear than many other peoples and they appreciate better that it worked well for them. You could say that the French in general including French liberals are more pro nuclear, and more hostile towards Greenpeace, but you can't praise liberalism and blame conservatism in general.
Scott is someone who is ideologically motivated and tries to influence his readers into the mental shackles of not strongly deviating from liberal consensus. Or when doing so, only after struggle, and guilt. It also related to the fact that he sells himself as an intellectual with solutions and it is in his interest to promote more verbally complex and promote things are complicated. Because if a lot of people have the solution, then his role is dismissed.
However, the fact that people treated as intellectuals of a liberal orientation prefer that there are no simple solutions to problems like homelessness doesn't mean that there aren't. Just like the fact that Bukele's solution would had been rejected as too simplistic. Scott is someone who even if he begrudingly accepts such suggestions he does it only after promoting enough mentally shackling propaganda that influences negatively in an anti intellectual direction everyone involved.
So I disagree with Scott's claim of people with "damn liberals" approach being unfair. It is possible for liberals to be extremists and wrong. Rejecting liberals views without taking blood from a stone without guilt, and without much struggle, and without being censored and punished is the way to go. Nobody respects equally all political tribes, or have problem rejecting what is sacred for all political tribes, and far, far fewer do so for those on the genuine right. Just because liberals as a tribe have a preference, does not mean people should respect it. Now, in practice, most people who genuinely reject the ideas of liberals aren't actually the kind who purity spiral in the opposite direction.
Another thing related to Scott's approach is not only his own ideology but him appealing and being part of liberal networks and the danger of offending them. Where there is a direct solution that is more simple and evidence suggests works, it should be recommended outright. It is not a virtue to be shackled in not offending too much the preferences of liberals, when offending their preferences can be what is correct and better for the common good.
The idea that the alternative can only be cruel and draconian is also false, as is the idea that Scott and people of his ideological preferences are kind. It is the fallacy of one sided examination of negative consequences. Obviously if you only focus on what is good for the group you favor and not for the negative consequences on other groups, you can claim falsely to be the kindest person on earth. Anarchotyranny and being at mercy of criminals or harassment by homeless, deserves negative description. Meanwhile, favoring too much criminals, or whatever ethnic group, ends up harming other groups. There are always tradeoffs, and a policy that is rainbows for everyone is impossible, but current decriminalization policies are on the cruel side and against the common good. Scott is exaggerating the harmfulness of rejecting liberal preferences. If you don't purity spiral in opposite direciton, you can have something better. See El Salvador as one example.
The reality is that homelessness is not that big of a problem in many countries. And despite the downplaying, the Soros and friends decriminalization policies are a massive problem as has been the pro libertine morality and drug policies and culture. What are called "Tough on crime" policies and reversing decriminalization policies and actually arresting people committing crimes or harassing strangers on public is a necessary element of solving such issues and it are neither cruel nor draconian.
I would reject as unnecessary the "kill" suggestion. Countries without much homelessness problem, don't kill the homeless. Plus, just because it is a liberal fallacy that it is kindness to put on the pedestal the groups liberals favor at expense of other groups whose rights and interests are dismissed and treated as even evil to consider them as legitimate and reduce the rights and favor on groups liberals favor too much (including those who share such preferences for tribes liberals favor, or some in isolation, or conform to it due to fear of being negatively labeled or otherwise harmed), it doesn't follow that it is correct to be maximally inconsiderate of their well being. Although of course their own tribalism, and willingness to disrespect others rights should both affect how they are treated a) from a universalist point of view b) when considering what is good for other groups on their own right from that group's perspective. And what is good for other groups matters also when considering things from a universalist point of view, as well considering who is aggressive towards who and who is minding their own business.
On the hierarchy of rights, you don't have a right for others to be pathologically altruist in your favor. Of course it follows, you don't have a right for other groups to be identity-less atomized and subservient who have no group rights and tribalism. You don't have a right for others not to have a right of self defense, if you threaten them. You do have a right to not be murdered however, including if you are homeless and more likely to statistically have problems and be mentally ill, an addict, criminal, etc.
More options
Context Copy link