Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
I encountered the same types who were using incel to had been previously been using MRA as an insult in reddit political subreddits.
The reality is that in culture wars, the groups that are bullied more are those who have shown weakness and susceptibility to it by accepting it, and those who have a lower status position. And men who do pander to women qualify. Obviously this in it self is a massive problem for movements that claim to be for equality, and you will sometimes see people use the arguement that X demographic cares less about identity politics for themselves, so it is fine and proper to maintain a caste system.
A bit like the over focus on white extremism, or "right wing conspiracy theorists". All these are smear terms and propaganda from a political space that favors framing things in a manner that is excessively disfavorable towards its outgorups, men being one of them.
It is also important to note, that it is blatantly a bad argument that the existence of niche subcommunities justifies such behavior. There is obviously a backlash against feminism, but modern loser men have never been more pro feminist, and previous generations of more sexually successful men, had more antifeminist views. Although, being attractive and more social is probably something women appreciate more than having more feminist views and not being too social. But that frustration a) it would be unfair on current societal circumstances including issues like hypoagency, female overepresentation in colleges, and a lot other things, to entirely pin on men as a class while not criticising women which is what the prevailing bias is towards b) it is something different than the narrative that ties the increasing more isolated behavior as deserving because they hate women. This guy has a decent if somewhat more pro male take on decline of marriage. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
An aspect of this strategy is to keep in line under a mental slavery and acceptance of their inferior role, various demographics who accept that it is just and roper for them to have a subservient role as allies. My view is that these ideologies really need to be thrown in the dustbin, but it isn't as if I think unfairness towards women is impossible. Although we should also be conserned with important goals of the common good and not take a self serving lazy stance that greater comfort for particular demographics is greater good. For example neither women nor society benefits if birth rates crash and we have a culture that abhors necessary pain and self sacrifice.
What we see here is another example of a supremacist ideology in favor of specific demographic, also unconcerned about the negative effects n society in general, that hides under the pretense of being morally pure, and its dissenters evil. It would be a beating a dead horse to say that a male incel supremacist/focused ideology where the selfish interest of an incel is maximized at expense of women, and society, is undesirable. I would expect most people here already agree with the undesirability of such approach. Well, people should realize such movements are exaggerated enormously and dangled as scapegoats to justify the opposite extreme, and reject such manipulations.
Although, controversially, I don't see why the interests but not from a self destructive manner for society, of even incels of people who would have come incels, needs to not be considered. As should that of women, even incel women. Hint, hint, we need to move towards a situation that there is more romance, marriages, and births. And part of having a sane understanding on such controversial issues is putting your foot down and saying that the legitimate interests of groups like whites, men, whoever, matter. But, like all interests those have a limit and it relates also to how they affect the legitimate interests of other groups. There is a massive gray area and room for debate, but this idea that only the interests of progressive favored groups matter, and the interests of other groups is inherently an extremist proposition, is precisely why things have gone in a direction that is hateful and mistreating of groups whose interests are treated as illegitimate.
While I am in favor of the suppression/end of various sacred cows movements and their limited hangouts that are extreme in this manipulative manner I don't think the ideal is to be the opposite extreme, but to try to wisely favor good tradeoffs. There isn't a good reason to buy into this idea that without such movements and factions only the most extreme chaos and opposite approach would happen. Part of these fears relate also to exaggerating the bad things from the past and not considering the good things that have been eroded by such movements. Nor the fact that we can in fact choose to accept whatever if any reasonable points have been made, while still we ought to reject the unreasonable, which cannot be done under the factions that are uncompromising which is what we are dealing with now.
Considering some of his recent statements, maybe Nate believes that the Democrats have got off the deep end, and are dragging the country in the same direction. From that perspective, a republican supreme court can help avoid some of that, or at least won't contribute to it, while Democrat supreme court would end the first amendment for example, and implement a woke partisan agenda.
Sure, the sun is going to harm the kid's skin, and so what? Maximizing life expectancy at all costs does not lead to better outcomes. At some point you are getting very small % of reduction of risk for much bigger sacrifices.
For example this article https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/black-men-live-longer-inside-prison-out/352939/ claims (but now that I googled it I found also opposite claim) that black men live longer in prison than out, but obviously it isn't a good trade off to imprison people to increase their life expectancy.
In this case there is also the risk arising from less activity, and more obese and less social life. Exercise also has mental health benefits. Ironically, maximizing a safetyism of passivity and staying home, is more unsafe than a more active life which does expose people to various risks, but might decrease to an extend their stress, obesity levels, and make them less likely to be diabetic, suffert from heart diseases. It might also increase likelihood of more successful romantic life, which is good for the individual and good for society due both improvements of collective good, and raising birth rates.
Recommending more use of sunscreen would be a good idea though, including for adults who drive a lot and expose one side of their face to the sun. Not just to improve life expectancy but more to protect the skin from looking really old. Especially for one part of their face.
Doctors should promote behavior changes, and medicine but ones that are good trade offs. There are many.
It's just naked bias with extra steps. Whenever I see talk about "punching up/down," I mentally replace "up" with "direction I want to punch" and "down" with "direction I don't want punches going in," and it's a more useful way of analyzing the situation every single
I disagree. Many of the people who say they are punching up, are actually punching down.
Because there is such thing as who are deemed acceptable targets by society. Which can be observed by the laws, popular narratives, regulations and common practices.
That it is cultural far leftists with the whipping hand and chauvinists for their coalition of identities matters in regards to who we ought to focus upon.
Now, some progressives might have argued the same for some of their favored groups applied in the past. But whatever merit or not such view had in the past, their movement overreached and now it is the stage that this overreach has already happened.
What it means to punch up can even change through time, even if the rhetoric remains similar. This isn't to say that some rhetoric isn't inherently for something unjust, even if it comes from a weaker party. So, there are limitations on "punching up" even if some group is unfairly mistreated.
I think the main problem with the whole "punching up/down" or "egg vs wall" framework is that there's just no agreed-upon way to meaningfully determine which side is actually the stronger and the weaker side. In WW2, the Axis powers lost, so one could argue that, by definition, they are the weaker side, but then others could argue that merely losing to someone else isn't proof of being the weaker side, and we need to analyze the precise details of the situation. I
I agree with the later claim.
With the Israeli and Palestinian issue, one could pretend that expansionist Islamists or Jewish supremacists who want the entire so called promised land to be Jewish, to be victimized party.
At some level, some focus on "underdog" is like you say, pointless, because the "underdog" group is too wide, and it is in service in an agenda that misleads.
I do think there is a value both in WW2 and in other events, to also look at who is committing atrocities against whom. Are worldwide Muslims the underdog? No. Are the Palestinians the underdog and the more mistreated party? Yes. Does this mean they are morally pure and we should desire a reversal of the situation? No. Indeed, we ought not to put on any group an anointed permanent victim status, and be more skeptical. So, when pressuring, we should act wisely, not with limitless commitment and lack of skepticism. But who does it make sense to pressure?
Ultimately, I do think as you say we need to look cases on their merits, but I want to push back at completely de-legitimizing caring about who is the underdog, because it comes as a self serving narrative to excuse taking the permanent side of certain groups even while they have the upper hand and mistreat others.
Or we can say, that who is the aggressive party and is actually committing the most atrocities against others, is ought to be something that matters.
I am actually in favor of trying to combine might with adherence to certain ethical principles and to enforce good rules, so don't misunderstand my position as being about reflexively favoring weakness over strength. Even if I do sympathize over weak but genuine victims over strong predators. At the end of the day if I get what I want, those favoring good rules would be the stronger party.
The key is the comparison. Would a typical republican be just as interventionist as Trump was, or much more? The reality is that there is in fact a much more gung ho republican faction and there has been backlash against Trump for not going along with the neocon agenda, as much as they wanted.
Both in regards to Ukraine, Syria, and general American involvement and intervention with other countries.
A blind approach about anything is bad in general.
Sympathizing with the underdog has its merits, provided you try to think about the circumstances and aren't following a robotic logic and are very willing to update your logic. That right and wrong does matter, but certainly if you want to oppose the greater atrocities being committed, focusing on who is committing them matters. And having some flexibility in seeing what different civilian groups are more targeted, as different sides have the upper hand, is going to be helpful.
But you should have the foresight and know who you are dealing with, and ought not be a permanent ally of anyone.
A more wrongheaded approach is the one where certain groups, especially ethnic groups can do no right, and other groups can do no wrong. Which is ironically promoted by plenty of propaganda that tries to pull heartstrings of our sympathies of the underdog, or promote permanent victims by either distorting history, or cherry picking from issues that fit, but is misleading through the exclusion of other events from the dominant narrative.
So I do think there are limitations, in many approaches, including sympathizing with the underdog. But it does have some merit in a limited sense. For example, I blamed USSR but there are those who see them as the victimized party that can do no wrong, because of nazi attrocities and initial nazi victories. Not only that logic is wrong, but it also forgets the Soviet invasions and occupations of multiple weaker countries.
But even in cases where everyone pretty much agrees on which of two parties is strongest and weakest - well, it's still possible to be both strong and morally upstanding, or weak and morally degenerate. Common, even.
While that is possible, the discussion is about atrocities, invasions and ethnic cleansing so I don't think this analogy applies with the relevant examples. Israel is of course not morally upstanding and there is a worldwide backlash against them precisely because of their warcrimes against the Palestinians and also the rhetoric in those lines.
And that they are the stronger party is not irrelevant. Even if hypothetically both parties were immoral, the stronger one gets the backlash because they are the ones committing the atrocities. And it is the focus on the later that matters. It does make sense to focus on strong parties committing atrocities, but I certainly don't think we ought to be myopic about the dangers of weak, mistreated immoral parties, getting stronger of course.
It isn't as if much of the world that sees what Israel does far more negatively than you, are applying the robotic fallacious logic of siding with the underdog against morally upstanding stronger party, which is more of a strawman.
Trembling Mad calls this gerrymandering power. When comparing Germany and Poland, Germany is stronger, ergo Germany's the bad guy - boooo! When comparing Germany and the USA, the USA is stronger, ergo Germany's the good guy - yaaaaay! It entirely depends on how close you zoom in.
Well, if decolonization movement only opposed European colonization of their countries but didn't pretend colonizing European countries was decolonization, then that would make them a more ethical movement than it is. Who is making the aggressive action at others expense matters. And plenty of aggressive action comes from a stronger party towards a weaker one. Even if in some cases the party that is de facto weaker, is due to a lack of will. So, the "who is the aggressor/who is commiting attrocities" complicates things from a more simplistic underdog model, and there as explained previously even more things beside to add to ones model.
It does seem that the hostility towards the underdog model here is not in favor of a more accurate way that is more flexible to changing realities, but more to promote a more simplistic model that declares certain factions as "good guys", and excuse their actions in a manner that isn't really fitting. In fact, even in WW2, atrocities towards civilians committed by the allies, especially the Soviet Union, matter. Especially when one considers the murderous records of the Soviets against non Germans too. Not only is using WW2 as a card to excuse atrocities today, both morally and factually wrong, it usually comes along views that are incorrect about WW2 itself. Indeed, ironically even the non Soviet allies, if they followed even more along this logic of "can do no wrong" their record would be even closer to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Because there were people with such logic back then. That there is some difference, also relates to the existence of some backlash within their societies and the existence of people who didn't follow the logic of "can do no wrong". Like for example the backlash against Morgenthau's plan. And those who expressed such backlash sometimes got heat for it.
Well, yes, but if you sympathize with the underdog, the German invasion of multiple other countries is going to matter a lot. I am not convinced such sympathies that would lead someone to sympathize with the Palestinians, would have let to them to sympathize with Germany. Following such logic in a non stupid manner might lead someone to oppose the mass rapes or mass murder of Germans while the winning Soviet army was marching, or oppose the mass murderous Morgenthau Plan. But would that be wrong? No it wouldn't. It was also good that the Japanese after WW2 were not subject to being punished in the same kind they planned to deal with China.
I do think that saying things like "No matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg.”", can lead to stupid conclusions though.
The Axis powers were not the weaker party in WW2. They invaded and defeated various countries that were weaker than them.
The Soviets also did this against various countries not called Germany, so actually I disagree with even an analysis of WW2 that blames everything on Germany. Actually both national socialist Germany and the Soviet Union started the war in europe by invading various other countries and having the goal of hegemony in Europe and be inclined to attack each other too for such purpose. Add to that a quite mass murderous record, and not only modern analogies break down, but we ought not to take a pro USSR stance in WW2. You can have an anti-nazi position of course and I would agree. Both an anti-soviet, and anti-nazi position makes sense in relation to a pro human rights, national sovereigntiy, anti-invasion/attrocities/colonialism take. This isn't to say that taking a stance that "our atrocities are good and justifiable", is justifiable for the non Soviet allies, neither.
If you would like a good book to recommend that examines more the Soviet side and Stalin's machiavelian strategy, I would highly recommend Stalin's war for those interested.
It is more that one man can not be an administration, even if the appeal of Trumpism is the fantasy of change.
For all the promise of Trump changing things, at the end of the day his administration will have plenty of typical republicans. But Trump at least represents a promise. And there is some difference.
You also ought to give Trump credit for being an obstacle to a much more neocon, interventionist, deep state aligned republican administration. And you would be getting a different administration if people more like Pompeo, Mike Pense, etc, were the president.
I do agree with another poster that people should put more pressure on politicians like Trump who they think are supposedly on their side, when pushing counter establishment moves. But also towards other politicians of course.
While some criticism can be warranted, and Greenwald manages to usually be fair about this issue, blaming everything on Trump and doubly so focusing the blame on Trump fans is unwise, even if one isn't doing so from a lefty perspective. It lets off the hook more powerful, numerous factions like the neocons. Especially the permanent bureaucrats who don't change, or lobbyists, or the media and those that run it. It is better to focus on them, than Trump fans who are at least hopeful of a bigger change than what Trumpism probably can bring.
Doctors have a duty to do no harm and you aren't offering a service like any other business but are obligated to either help patient's have improved outcomes, or at least not to harm them.
The attitude "fuck, why not" goes completely against how the medical profession ought to operate and if followed by doctors in practice, it should come with professional penalties. Indeed, this even applies to more mild things. Cardiologists don't tell their obese patients, at least if they are good, "eat what you want, what the fuck do I care", they tell them to change their diet, and to walk around. And much more. And should not be Cardiologists if they don't do this.
Doctors shouldn't help self destructive patients to destroy themselves either totally, or in part. I certainly wouldn't want even a cent to go to pay for doctors doing that. Nor should they be allowed.
Now, medical tyranny of safetyism is another danger of doctors acting unwisely which also goes against proper medical ethics. Indeed in certain studies apparently prisoners of certain demographics, IIRC black Americans, live longer than those of same demographic outside of prison, but maximizing life at expense of imprisoning people would obviously be an undesirable outcome.
Then there is the worst behavior for doctors to hypothetically engage in which is a combination of both. Being too tyrannical where one ought not to, and not guiding patients or restricting them from self harm but indulging in it, where one ought not to. With some of the covid measures and lockdowns and the trans issue and the OP issue we can see that they can coexist among the medical establishment.
Anyhow, ideally we would see from doctors some level of paternalism but not too much, and focused in the areas it is wise too focus upon, but also seeing "do no harm" as an important principle. Which means not allowing operations described in the OP and then we would need to see the proper way to deal with doctors who abused their position and mutilated their patients. Whether only very severe professional penalties are appropriate, or whether there should be prison time as well.
And if we hypothesize some alternative society in which those policies would be popular, then would you even need them in the first place? Hm, maybe they would still be useful to fix the pro-natal attitudes and fight against any potential value drift.
On plenty of issues factions that are minorities impose their agenda on larger more disorganized majorities by capturing institutions of power and by creating organizations and lobby groups. Then they promote propaganda about those opposing their blatant actions being conspiracy theorists.
Also, after policies have been promoted by energetic factions with power, a certain % of people are willing to change their mind. We have seen this with gay marriage. This doesn't apply to all policies, some might be too extreme to not be disliked by the majority, but it does apply to many.
If natalist measures are implemented, then you are going to get people who go along with it who previously wouldn't have supported these kind of policies. Part of that might also be the power centers promoting propaganda.
And beyond just changing one's opinion, the policies, quotas themselves affect behavior.
I am not opposed to a mixed carrot and stick approach but there are plenty of carrots that haven't been tried and things that aren't carrots but changing the current arrangement. I oppose maximizing the sticks as unnecessarily cruel and less likely to work than some more politically incorect changes that are also less about sticks. The compulsion policies should not just be directed at single people but also business, unviersities, and all sorts of powerful institutions.
Lets mention one issue that we could see positive change:
Our current model is that careerism and education is pushed as a model for the youth in their family formation years. Add to that female overepresentation in universities and desire to date up.
This is a result of plenty of subsidies and encouragement. Stopping this and strongly encouraging by various policies instead family formation as a priority, especially for women in that window would make much more sense. And we don't even have to exclude careerism and education as goals, just put them as less a priority. Especially for women.
But women always worked, and in the past it was a more village setting and also with less machines and globalized system of productions. So it doesn't make sense to go back to that, but our current model also doesn't make sense. We need greater prioritisation of family formation.
Beyond that, people can live long life. We should deal with overcredentialism and wasting time on those issues, but what is wrong with spending more time being educated in your thirties, delaying your career focus too in 20s and 30s, but having a family. From a perspective of the greater good, it is a better arrangement. Men becoming in such a situation higher economic status and more attractive for women will also increase the marriage rate.
And directly teach people in schools, and through television programs promoting large families, the value of larger families. Especially promote "propaganda" in the good sense especially towards women and girls which in fact is in line with their insticts, and also better inform them about the fertility window. For example bring along married mothers with their husband with multiple children in school for "family planning" school lessons and strongly encourage the model of a married family with multiple children through both the media and such experiences.
Also, it is obviously the case that pets have taken some of the role of the need for children for various people including some who do have children and might have had more without pets. I dunno what the correct policy response would be to that, but it is a factor.
Another thing that is politically incorrect is that to do this and other changes, you simply need to suppress the feminist and liberal establishment and anti natalist liberals in general which are not going to stand for this. They can go as far as support canceling pro natalist conferences. Many liberals do not want to solve this issue but want to downplay it and point to the inevitability of solving it. Because they oppose the more conservative, or anti-feminist changes, or also are hostile to stopping what facilitates the replacement of western populations, and are also hostile to those nativists who oppose the destruction of their nations through mass migration and low ferility rates. They are also motivated by the fact that liberalism will be blamed for the drop of fertility rates.
Imagine you are in a sinking ship which has a hole in it. And you got a part of the crew and passengers claiming that there is nothing to be done and they are discouraging those trying to cover it. You either sink, or you stop them and keep them out of influence and strip the demoralizing pro inaction crew from their position.
So if we want a stick, lets also talk about suppressing factions who oppose this, and promoting the pro-natalists. Because you are not going to get into the position of implementing serious carrots and serious sticks, without having natalists to capture power and suppress anti-natalists which are made especially by plenty of liberals. We could call this faction liberal fundamentalists/dogmatists, while maybe ideally we could get some people who sympathized or identified with liberalism, to break from it.
By directly promoting natalism and suppressing anti natalism you could get it through. It's how liberalism and its version called wokeness, and the Israel lobby and even Covid measures were promoted. Fundamentally, you can as a society through both authoritarian means and through education and having people capturing institutions that push certain agendas, get plenty but not all people to change their attitudes. Most importantly you can get policy changes in this way. So a change for natalism is possible. Although the point isn't just to change things from a bad direction, but to change things towards a wise direction. Which I believe would require a more multi-faceted approach than maximizing sticks in single areas. So you can't be maximally authoritarian without considering what you are promoting and being willing to adjust where you overreached. Although that is far from the current problem, and really being wise requires not being too impotent to act as well.
Yes for the first question.
To see things only from the perspective of dissuading Russian aggression and not American aggression against other countries is flawed and usually comes from bias.
Because it sounds like you’re arguing against continued U.S. support. But that’s an incredibly perverse incentive for Russia. To any would-be invader, really.
It doesn't sound like I am arguing about either more or less US support actually. What I am arguing is that American foreign policy is not about dissuading aggression but machiavelian and willing to both invade countries, commit coups, and also instigate proxy wars.
I do believe that supporting a negotiated peace is the better alternative than the continued meat grinder. American influence over Ukraine is such to be able to push things in that direction and in fact it seems that it was the UK (likely acting with USA support) that stopped the real possibility of a peace between Ukraine and Russia.
It is in fact a perverse incentive to focus only on Russian aggression and excuse American aggression. American behavior is going to affect the behavior of countries like Russia too.
In general, I don't see only dangers from American imperialism but also from China and Russia becoming more beligerent. My preference and advice for trying to deescalate is therefore not only directed towards the USA. Although certainly I am going to focus more about where there is more pushback and what is more relevant to the audience I am talking to. There aren't here any sizable number of Chinese imperialists arguing that China should invade Taiwan because of getting revenge over century of humiliation or by promoting only America bad narrative while pretending that Chinese imperialism would be no problem. Or arguing for China to invade multiple of its neighbors because they are in an American led coalition to destroy China. The bad behavior of each power also affect each other, just like a willingness to not push past certain red lines and having trade which is consistent with some protectionism and showing some willingness to compromise which can also incentivize more pro cooperation behavior.
Ultimately, the faction of American imperialists are not out to dissuade imperialism but themselves are a threat to world peace, and additionally to the rights of peoples under their rule. To only focus on Russia, and not acknowledge the problem of American foreign policy in terms of destructive coups, color revolutions, including what resulted in aggressive moves including shelling of more Russian areas in Ukraine and in theaters such as Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Israel, with promises of further escalation in places like Iran, is not how you avoid moral hazard but how you ensure it remains there. Both in terms of American bad behavior, and encouraging other countries. Especially when the rhetoric of escalation building towards a situation closer to WW3 is there. This isn't Iraq where the destructive incompetence of belligerent tunnel vision is important but still lower stakes. The stakes, especially when one also considers nukes, couldn't be higher.
Unlike you who want an one sided perspective, I am not going to defend the Russian invasion. I am just going to condemn American imperialists for invading multiple countries and trying to engineer proxy war and overstep deliberately on the red line of countries like Russia, knowing this would cause war. And even justifying it after the fact as a worthy investment since they see the meat grinder as good if Russians are dying.
Also the rhetoric about toppling Putin and dismantling Russia, which when it comes from GAE that has done this throughout the world, it has teeth.
Although Russia has become more militarily capable and built further its industry and their alliance with China and economic ties grew, and moreover multiple other countries have started increasingly trading without using the dollar.
It is anti-neocon not Pro China invading Taiwan or Russia invading Ukraine. In fact i would rather that China avoids invading Taiwan in the future and would consider that a world destabilizing move. One that should be dissuaded.
It is your perspective that tries to create a simplistic Russia bad, GAE good here.
Often times, "nuance" is a way to attempt to use small second, third, and fourth order effects as an excuse to ignore enormous first-order effects.
You have been consistently ignoring American invasions of various countries, color revolutions, and American attempts to engineer the conflict that happened.
The reality is that neocon USA is not the defender of world peace against the evil Chinese and Russians but a menace in its own right. One that had been a bigger menace after fall of soviet union than the other two, although that is also because of the weaker position of Russia and China. And that also also encourages the elites of such countries to act in a similar manner, bringing things closer to WW3. One could also argue that further imperialism by China or Russia, also encourages more bad American behavior.
The correct take is to favor elites that see their interest in undermining each others warmongering and also see some value in cooperation. Things were closer in that direction in regards to Russian, American and Chinese relationship at one point. And it wasn't the Russian invasion that started changing this. This came after the color revolution in Ukraine and after the destruction of various countries and after rise of rhetoric about bringing the same recipe to China and Russia. Of course the rise of China has played its role too.
I don't believe everything is the US fault, but I do believe neocon agenda USA is a bad actor that holds zero respect for international law and doesn't even respect its own people. That the neocon faction acts in an obviously machiavelian manner and even promotes such arguments from a might is right perspective then plays a motte and bailey with moralism.
Whether in Iraq, Syria, Libya, or wanting to bomb Iran, Israel, or yes Ukraine as well, the American foreign policy has been a destructive one that shows little respect to international law.
It isn't the only bad actor. Actually one of the problem with being maximally beligerent is that is infectious, and gives others the excuse to act likewise. In my ideal world great powers would try to constrain each other bad behavior and also due to their own interest oppose each others imperialistic tyrannical behavior against other countries. While cooperating in win win ways.
but Russia which tried to topple Ukraine.
You are forgetting the color revolution in Ukraine with American participation, and Ukrainian shelling of Russian areas and laws against Russian language. While the USA has been training Ukrainians and Ukraine have been having their Azov regiments. There is also American support for removing Assad, and toppling Gaddafi, Saddam, talking of bombing Iran and a big history of warmongering and regime change worldwide. And the rhetoric about removing Putin and supporting opposition. Then there are the coups of the CIA worldwide, of which Putin is especially aware of.
People are not going to be gullible and not take this in mind just because it would be in the interest of neocons to do so.
Also, the extreme far leftist agendas promoted by the USA that relate to their hatred of Putin for not going along, and to an extend to his opposition to them. Not to mention the fact that some of the oligarchs that looted Russia that left from Putin, fled to the USA and have been advocating for regime change.
Of course Russia and China have their own belligerence and imperialistic agendas. Russians are responsible for their invasion and previously supporting rebels. If China invades Taiwan they would be responsible for that as they have their responsibility for the bullying of their neighbors in terms of fishing rights and more.
This still doesn't make American imperialists any less bad. Nor does it make sense to support them under the guise of pro west sentiment.
Importantly, in addition to their other sins, neocon elites are people who aren't at all respecting national self determination and dislike the people they rule. They don't respect freedoms neither and are supportive of cancel culture and authoritarianism at home while pretending to be bringing liberation abroad when they bomb other countries or try to escalate conflicts. They don't value the interests of the people they rule as a group and try to enforce national self hatred and prioritization of foreign immigrants, and are following tyrannical policies that lead to the destruction of european ethnic groups.
the West
The neocon agenda sharers are fundamentally anti west. In that they and Dugin, or Chomsky are all in the same side. They only differ on the type of tyrant they want the west to be ruled by, and maybe in regards to some of the details about which groups should be on top. But neither are for the west as a civilization and western peoples. Nor do they respect their rights.
They are further from being the west, than the Communists were Russia/Ukraine and all other countries under their rule.
What is weird is to see an attempt to go back to the neocon consensus when part of Trump's appeal was to criticize their failures, including their over the top hostility towards other great powers.
I don't think being a fanboy of Russia, China, Iran is the way to go, but it is healthy in general, including for the right wing in particular to be skeptical of American imperialism. Especially since modern American militarism is of a woke empire that is increasingly hostile to right wingers.
If some people on the right have a more mature take after decades of neocon failures that they have experienced, and also due to that hostility then that is a good thing.
And of course, from the time of George Washington to today, it is a legitimate and correct agenda to not want your country subordinate to foreign lobbies. This is an aspect of American involvement in foreign conflicts. Imperial overreach and war with Iran is not in the interest of the American people.
From a broader perspective than just American interest, I prefer the time Russians and other Europeans traded with each other, over the current situation and while sane protectionism, or reacting to harmful trading and other practices against you is fine, I am skeptical of what I see as the sentiment of cutting off other powers. Or plans that lead us into war.
It is better for the world to try to work with them, than escalate things into conflict and topple heir countries. This isn't just a right wing take, but it is certainly the case that right wingers in western countries should not let themselves be sacrificed for a global empire that is against them both ideologically and even as ethnic groups. Plus, pragmatically there isn't an existential threat from Russia, nor China, and certainly not from Iran and warmongering raises risks.
Deescalation and an attempt of a modus vivendi between different power blocks is the better idea. Especially in the current circumstances. Part of that does include having a capable military incidentally. Being strong while choosing a good deal over both one sided appeasement nor trying to topple other countries and their leadership is the better alternative than what American elites did, especially when looking at China. Which is to be pro China as China was growing in power, and turn against it when it had already exceeded USA in productive capacity and became the richest country when accounting for purchasing power parity.
Isn't deboer a "Marxist of an old-school variety"?" https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/about He is sort of right about the anarchists but doesn't the same apply to him?
My view is that the claimed utopian intentions of anarchocommunists is less relevant than their behavior while in power, or what they support politically. It is still ironic for an old school marxist to be a critic of anarchists for supporting state repression, when the same contradiction exists in old school marxism.
You don't have to address everything. You can either disengage in a less rude manner or you could have addressed specific points from a longer post.
Like the argument that cultural appropriation is not the driving force but that racist prejudices in favor of progressive tribes like jews, blacks, and such groups honor being put on a pedestal. And that Scott fails to get away from that.
Or the argument that legitimizing lived experiences is a mistake because the concept is used by such groups to promote narratives of their lived experience that are too demanding and disrespectful of other groups.
Or the argument that Jews as a tendency and Scott Siskind, but not all Jews, tend to not fit into the white American ethnic category due to having a hostility towards white non Jews and very strong nationalism and strong Jewish identity. You brought Italians, I countered with various arguements and points, including explaining how even groups that belong in a certain broader group like ww2 Germans and Japanese through their own excessive ethnic nationalism acted against other Europeans and Asians. The point being that a reduction in Jewish nationalism and more friendly view of white Christians, is a prerequisite to a greater share of (American Jews) them fitting in a broader white American ethnic category, in the way that a few Jews like Amy Wax do fit.
You chose to claim that my argument was entirely incomprehensible. Even though at least some people disagreed, even though one can also be downvoted when they make a valid point.
All of these are points one can engage with. In fact, if I develop them in more detail doesn't even stop you from engaging in a shorter manner. It isn't as if length is always bad, it can be necessary to back certain views down further.
Of course window of opportunity of discussing them is lost since the thread is old and you undermined it by refusing to engage and asking for work. And then additionally trying to imply that I shouldn't be posting because you can't understand what valid reason I might have to be commenting on this site...
Anyways, I very much hope you wouldn't spend much time writing 3 paragraphs to clarify the position you already thought over in great detail, enough to write 3234 words(including quotes) in just your previous response. My whole point is I want something short, about 250 words max, that I can actually understand.
I don't know why you comment on this site. I do it because I enjoy being able to think through my thoughts, have others point out any mistakes I make or facts I miss, to convince others of my positions, and to get upvotes. You writing out what's basically a 12 page essay that I can't understand the thesis or conclusion of doesn't accomplish much of that, and I don't know what it did accomplish
There are people who have a different preference to you and prefer to write fewer times and longer posts that raise various different points relating to the discussion subject together. If you genuinely seek to understand others and to learn from mistakes, you either engage with parts of that and ask clarifications where you don't understand. Or if your preference is only shorter posts, then that is part of your preference and you can in fact politely tell people you don't want to engage with something longer without asking them additional work. Maybe you can tolerate only some kind of longer posts. You should try to appreciate that there are people who can get something from posts that you don't understand, nor care for.
The attitude that the other person's writings are completely without merit and questioning why they comment is not an attitude that comes from someone whose motivation is to understand others and learn from their mistakes. But from someone who hates those with strongly different views on certain culture war issues and wants them to not post and tries to undermine them and seeks an excuse to do that and not engage intellectually with others. Maybe there is also something there about not respecting people whose writing style you don't like.
If you really want more understanding, you need to show more patience of other people, or not engage with them if you don't have that. For them not posting would promote less understanding, and me not articulating where you have been wrong would not allow you to learn from your mistakes. If you really want to do that, there is an opportunity there, and the barrier is you not wanting to engage. Indeed, I am also unable to see where my argument might have holes if the other person just asks for more work, instead of addressing at least a part of what is already there.
Whether they disagree with you, or their writing style preference isn't to your liking, or has its own flaws, your response is not the proper way to handle this. Nobody is perfect, so if you made or make in future times less onerous demands on specific points, while engaging with other arguments, I and people in my position would be more willing to accommodate you in part, and interpret that there is something worth engaging with here. That the other person isn't just trolling us, and there is an assurance that we aren't still going to get "you aren't making a point" as a response. Of course it is also fair to ask "what exactly you have a difficulty understanding with this point", and for some back and forth collaborative communication rather that it being an one sided effort.
In addition to the points you mentioned, to add to the second point, we also saw a movement against male gaze and sexualization of women. So the rising influence of feminists and liberals in general which goes beyond just me too. Sarkeesian's movement playing a role to that. At some point for enough of those who are influential, their version of ideology updated to something that is more prudish. Whether they adapted to that in their a) journolists and other more direct coordination mechanisms b) Through other ways they ideological converge by whatever signals they pay attention to.
It also might be the case that current generation of young people are less horny and more "tame". This is again a variation of parts of what you mentioned with 2. But it is driven by attitudes that are more embarrassed of sex than primarily motivated by the fear of being accused of sexual assault.
Transgenderism was less popular when it was more counterculture and rose in popularity after being promoted by elites.
The narrative of current progressive movements representing a reaction against a stiffing conservative order is not true. It rose after the liberal institutions promoted much more aggressively in the 2010s such agendas that they have been promoting in a weaker fashion before. They especially did this for the trans issue where there has been a bigger disparity in the fervor in 2010s and how they promoted it previously. And it rose in an age that wasn't conservative except by the standards of the progressive movement. Where conservative appeasement has been a reason for things turning in a progressive direction and not the solution. Conservatives compromising with progressives will not lead to progressives to back down, but to double down. This doesn't mean that conservatives should be purity spiraling, but they should refuse to compromise in many issues of principle and maintain wise standards.
Without such elite push, youthful transgression energy would focus on something less harmful. To the extend it is true that there is a social contagion, this is an argument that favors the conservative side in the trans debate. Even if as you argue there are also many that aren't going to seriously live the trans life. Better for people who had such inclinations for transgression, to be something like goth, punk, etc. Or even for their transgression to be limited to rebelling against illegitimate authority, like corrupt power abusing political factions, or warmongering.
An escalation of transgression isn't something that must be respected as a law of the universe when the consequences are severe enough.
To give another example. Lets say that to an extend there has been a fad of anorexia among teenage girls, or even of self harm which also relate with transgression having an appeal. Someone could claim that many of those affected might not kill themselves, or get over it. And yet it is still harmful, and more decisively harmful for a part of those affected. This kind of transgression is the kind that should be suppressed and not encouraged.
I appreciate this. The issue is that appeal lacks teeth because most progressives do know that such laws will be used in a pro progressive direction. I think it is a better idea to undermine the idea that political neutrality is about ignoring the partisan direction of such laws.
But maybe it is useful for both you to be making the more general argument and someone like me to be making the kind of argument I have made. Like one playing the good cop and the other the bad cop.
This is a "why do you beat your wife" question. I have never used AI to write, or edit a post, so I have can't see how they read like it, or why.
I doubt that an AI would even succeed in writing something so politically incorrect. In fact their prompts tend to be making excuses not to address issues, and they sound more like the rhetoric one sees by the liberal side. I usually edit in real time to fix some grammatical mistakes and change parts of it. Seems like a convenient way to attack and distract with low effort so I would just ignore it except I address it just so it isn't used as an excuse for mod action.
Do you have anything of value to say about the actual issue?
Edit: In a more succinct version of my previous post.
The idea that Jewish faults are not up to debate and non Jewish faults at expense of Jews can be overly focused upon without restraint, is absurd and is understandable why people will increasingly reject this. It is also understandable to see people react against this when such agendas relate to Noel Ignatiev type narratives and come along with increased authoritarianism.
As a movement with such ideology has itself become more influential naturally you see rising opposition. The reality is that the racism, sexism, antisemitism narratives label moderate positions as racist, promote a wildly one sided view, and the groups they favor are definitely not oppressed. Just as feminism by how it clasifies misogyny, is misandrist, same applies to the antisemitic narrative. The Jews who have been themselves very important to a Jewish supremacist movement of course are going to catch more criticism. Especially the powerful Jewish NGOs like the ADL.
Ideally, the progressive framework of sacred cows should be supplanted, with a framework of favoring more balanced, even handed treatment of different identity groups which would include both negative criticisms and and positive observations. A good way to do that would be growing intolerance towards the movement that weaponizes history to promote the wildly one sided narratives. Whether it is done by distorting reality, or by cherry picking events including attrocities and hiding inconvenient ones.
Rather than letting people like Jonathan Greenblat win by getting intimidated by words like slavery, holocaust, racism, antisemitism, we should instead see people ridicule such attempts and reject them. There is nothing inconsistent to thinking for example that the practice of slavery is abhorrent but also having no patience for those using the narrative of slavery to vilify and harm southerners, or Europeans.
I wonder where does this end. Like in Ukraine stopping elections altogether.
New drafts as some figures have started calling now.
The process of machiavelian behavior of what are called democracies is not new. Especially of lobbies that control politicians and the CIA with its fronts and reach in media, social media. Another problem has been western elites refusal to follow public demands on certain very immportant issues, especially mass migration. Rule by the people, FOR the people most importantly has been a massive problem while in certain issues, Putin and Xi who also have ruled more for their people. At least in terms of being more supportive of a positive identity for their people.
I am sure you would still be giving them the label democracies as they adopt the authoritarian methods that you see other goverments you label dictatorships including Russia (which is in theory also a democracy). In substance if you are trying to get democracies to adopt the authoritarian methods of what you call dictatorships, then you are advocating for them to continue transforming into authoritarian states that only wear the skin suit of democratic free societies.
The end of said transformation, even if the kind of thing that comes of that wins, it would be a victory of something totalitarian, ugly and a loss for those under its rule. But I don't think it can win, the way China has been investing and coordinating with so many other countries, can't really be shut down. I don't see why people should prefer a world seperated in big power blocks fighting each other, over more reasonable compromise.
I prefer the time when the Russians sell natural gas to europeans, the trouble with Ukraine didn't started, and we had mutual beneficial relationship and liked each other more. European manufacturing benefited from that and the whole Ukraine issue has been a destructive mess. Blindly hating the Chinese and Russians is unwise and lead the world to unnecessary conflict.
Trying to have mutual beneficial relationship with the Chinese too, is the best choice for non American powers as well. Especially if you want to be a real democracy, keeping down those who see permanent war and national security crisis against foreign powers to promote authoritarianism abroad is important. And there is a relationship between being a democracy and restraining excessive bellicose warmongers, and not adopting their anti-freedom agenda. Ironically, some of what I argue does have some crossover with mid 2000s liberalism, and really I am not against that. I have a problem with the liberal tribe for how extreme they are but I find that if you try to take the opposite position to any group on all issues and purity spiral in opposite direction, you get an idiotic extremist wildly unreasonable viewpoint. Plus, liberal tribe and liberalism has also its association with neocons.
I hope people who claim to value freedom here try to genuinely understand the reality that the neocon threat to your freedoms, supposedly to fight foreign threats (maybe Iran will be added to the mix) is greater than the influence those foreign countries have on you. And bills giving power to the goverment to ban as they please will be weaponized against domestic enemies of an establishment captured by ideological extremists.
I still wouldn't oppose punishing western companies for say censoring western media or forums, in relation to the preference of China. The same idea I mentioned above where it isn't sensible to be purity spiraling in opposite direction. There isn't any surgical wise policy here however but a slippery slope towards further tyranny under the idea of permanent war, and permanent national security threat. Of treating legitimate opponents of already tyrannical excesses like Tucker Carlson, as suspected traitors. Tucker Carlson isn't by accident perhaps the most popular/higher reach (especially when one considers suppression) journalist. He does promote some kooky stuff but has his reach by also often talking truth to power and saying things that are unsaid by others but are necessary to be said. A regime where coordinating deep state creatures shut down dissent and where more overltly bills banning it is done, is a totalitarian regime and certainly one ruled by an oligarchy for the oligarchy. Not one by the demos, for the demos.
Whatever the responsibility of men in the 60s or 70s, it isn't the 60s or 70s anymore and there is also not an equivalence in the current arrangement. Frankly, I don't think we should care that much, about whether men or women are more at fault for the sexual revolution. Do you disagree, and think we ought to prioritize the original blame?
Average men are getting a raw deal which is worse than women. In addition to dating prospects, frustrated men get hostility, while women get pandering.
It is only a minority of men who come as winners in the current arrangement, and that is also at expense of society.
I mostly agree with Scott's Greer take I linked towards which also includes a part about dating apps. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
This is important, because people used to date more often through dates being arranged by friends and relatives, or meeting people through their community and in statistics showing how people meet, these have sharply declined, while dating apps have been replacing them.
There is also the issue of women dating up and their overepresentation in colleges and benefiting from affirmative action policies. Now, I recall when looking at statistics a rise in loneliness among women too, although there is certainly less pressure on them, but the current way things are arranged isn't necessarily great for women, even if it is worse for men. And even if there is pro female identitarian aspect to opposition towards changing things.
In any case, I don't think we should be paralyzed by narratives of original blame, on really any issues of consequence, but need to examine if the current arrangement is good, not necessary perfect, but working well, and if it isn't working well then it is time to change things. Of course, this is compatible with conservative changes, and reversing specific previous changes that resulted in things going in a worse direction.
More options
Context Copy link