Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Obviously policy is elite driven not public driven. And the public's attitutes have changed in relation to the influence of the elites and censorship laws. The British electorate is pretty liberal and rising authoritarianism has been done by social liberals in the name of social liberalism. Including by people who were liberals as part of conservative party and pushed things to a liberal direction on all sorts of issues that are part of social liberal agenda. Like gay marriage, hate speech laws, affirmative action type of policies, including in political party leadership like torries. And such attitutes didn't just come yesterday as mana from the heaven, but have a root and a history.
This idea that one can separate liberalism with authoritarianism we have seen is definitely distorting history. Especially when you do it in favor of a tribe of social liberals as the champions of freedom. It's people like Tony Blair, Cameron, continuing on trajectory of previous people who pushed attitutes and even hate speech laws in a certain direction who were key protagonists in bringing things in current direction. Prior to them, the new left and in Britain Fabian types always had their influence and being wolf in sheep clothing selves. Something extreme. They just couldn't push their more extreme policies through immediately. Or some of the elites were less extreme but had attitudes willing to compromise and allow more extreme of the liberal faction get their agenda through. Including allowing the influence of particular lobbies and activists to expand.
The reality is that authoritarian social liberalism is a very real ideology, and more representative of what social liberals, and therefore the liberal tribe and elites have been historically and especially even more so now than any association of them with freedom. And a part of what is taken to be part of social liberalism package includes the protected groups idea. To an extend, authoritarianism for cultural progressivism has been an aspect of even the USSR, especially before Stalin.
Maximalist freedom seekers are also not going to be satisfied by the age prior to social liberalism of course. When this tribe dismantled the conservative order, they weren't doing it to erect a free society, but to erect their order. At such, any advantages of "freedom tm" relating to dismantling restrictions of the old order, were always going to be temporary.
And what about when the worm turns, and the next moral panic and/or government comes around? Will they persecute Trudeau in the courts for perpetuating hate through his use of blackface?
You make a really good arguement in most of your post except for the parts about "this bill will be used against progressives", where the best argument against this bill will sound more partisan and conservative than your take and be more correct. Trying to sound neutral ends up producing something not neutral.
In practice these bills have enabled far leftist authoritarianism and hate speech, by censoring valid opposition.
Another problem with that worry is that I believe an enormous part of the problem has been the unwillingness to apply the laws even handedly against progressive identity groups and progressives themselves. This applies with the entire antiracism issue but it is especially an enormous problem with hate speech regulations. That they are incredibly one sided and enable hateful speech of far left direction and censor legitimate valid opposition to it.
There seem to be some guilible conservatives who have internalized it as principle and support such laws. While others who are against conservatives find it strategically useful to claim to be such. And machiavelian leftists use this as an argument to promote double standards.
Double standards in application of the law feeds the ideology now backed by legal status quo, of treating so called protected groups including speech critical of them, differently. And people actually buying into the superiority of such groups. It feeds authoritarianism where if you applied the law with going after protected groups including leftists for offending right wing ethnic groups with racism, you would have a system where more parties are incentivized to have something less tyranical, because they too will be affected.
Of course powerful left wing organizations and ethnic organizations behind such laws are never going to be convinced of trying to do anything but control things, so they can apply them against the groups they disfavor and in favor the groups they favor. So you need to exclude from influence the hardcore ideologues, and unfortunately you got to work with some of the people who might had been willing to go along with parts of their agenda due to it being easier. I doubt everyone willing to vote for such laws necessarilly understands what they are doing.
But at this point there are no excuses. Such laws are simply not even handed in the least and that must be taken in consideration by people who discuss them and argue in favor of such laws.
I mean, if we are to consider a view to be hate speech, saying you support hate speech laws is hate speech. Considering the hate speech laws end up following the philosophy of treating minority groups as superior, not taking seriously or even punishing advocacy for the rights of their right wing groups, operating in line with the logic that you can't be racis against X. Protected group supremacy is a hateful racist agenda. At such the first people that ought to be punished for extremism on such issues, are the people behind such laws.
Of course, if you wanted the ridiculousness of the whole thing to be self-evident, you would be hard pressed to pick a better time to introduce the bill than right now. 25 years for "inciting genocide"? In a time when the word genocide is being thrown about wantonly by both Israel and Palestine supporters as the accusation du jour, no one knows exactly what inciting genocide means, except that you can get 25 years for doing it on social media when Albert Speer got only 20 years for his role in architecting a system of literal concentration camp slave labour.
Holocaust denial laws were introduced in Germany in the mid 90s. And we have seen UK transform into increasingly authoritarian state in a few years. I believe it is possible we get an increasingly idiotic tyranny ruining peoples lives over this. I don't see in the ideology and practice of people like Trudeau and their general faction something that would limit that.
From a cosmic justice perspective this is surely a satisfying outcome, but it's a lamentable world where our political process has degenerated into a saga of political gangsterism where the ingroup and outgroup each take turns exacting revenge on each other. This is definitely the direction we're headed in.
I think you are too quick to declare this direction. The trajectory hasn't changed in the direction where different sides prosecute each other, and the one where we are in to with compromising/appeasing conservatives and far left tyranny, is itself quite lamentable enough.
Too much "bothsidesism" is not in itself an accurate assessment of reality. Maybe you are trying to appeal to progressives, but power being used by whoever, in a direction against current progressive excesses would be a good thing in my view, and necessary to fix things. Having a bias in seeing revenge against progressives where it doesn't exist could lead us into opposing things that aren't revenge but necessary reforms of balancing the system. Which requires power to be used against progressive excesses and extremists who abuse their power and influence, and have created networks whose agenda is to promote tyranny.
I genuinely think dismantling powerful far leftist and Ethnic chauvinist of left wing direction NGOs that have succeeded in infiltrating the state and private organizations and even collaborating with the cops is something that must be done if we are serious about protecting society from tyrannical totalitarian laws. Including when exercised by private mega corporations often used by governments as proxy in areas where the goverment is less able to get away with doing it, itself.
If you don't like their opinion, you should argue about it and not try to censor it by trying to manipulate the rules. Personally, I am much more outraged about people's views excusing warcrimes that happen now than any of the view about 80 years ago.
On the specific issue, I have both a negative view of historical nazis, and the nazi derangement syndrome types who have excused all sort of extremism on the basis of antinazism and try to take the opposite extreme view. There really has been a problem with destructive extremism of American liberals and communists in general, including in their cooperation in the 1940s, but also how they behaved separately while the nazis are also a group that should be seen as a warcriminal group, and not as Europe's defenders.
If under someone's analysis Europeans on the long term would be even worse off with the liberals than if the nazis won WW2, that is an indictment of liberals, and doesn't wash out the crimes of the Nazis against european ethnic groups. However, I also don't think trying to ascertain that is illegitimate, or extreme. This isn't what the person you are replying with were about, since they had an one sided pro mid century german view, but censoring the discussion, also helps excuse the extremism of liberals.
If the rule by so caled liberals, leads to the destruction of Europeans, then that is something insanely negative about liberals, and how the post WW2 order evolved. That matters when talking about how valid the good vs evil narrative is, and how good USA, one of the victor of WW2 has been.
I disagree. It doesn't gesture, it directly says what it says.
You are trying to censor an opinion you disagree with. He is saying that the Nazi Germans had foresight about the consequences of a world dominated by USA and Soviets . What is there that isn't plain? I am not saying that view is correct, but it isn't violating any speak plainly rule.
You should simply directly argue your opposite opinion including your disagreement with that poster's apparent sympathies for mid century Germany.
I'd be happy to read an open and evidenced defense of Nazi ideology or historical actions, but this isn't that.
And? It doesn't have to be.
The Irish goverment is ridiculously ideological in a left wing direction. Including its reaction to migration issue and the stabbing in Ireland, and its support of hate speech laws, which are hyped to be some of the most extreme and one sided in europe. I doubt it advertised what it was before it got elected. Apparently it is the liberal conservative party of the progressive center. And wiki has it as a center right party!
These kind of "center right" parties end up more culturally leftist than the left. Or at least there isn't any sizable, difference, you are getting the same cultural far left. Nice to see them lose this referendum, but is there any alternative in Ireland which would be a substantial change from this? My impression from my very short "research" is that all major Irish parties are pretty interchangeable, unfortunately.
On another note, I think one of the problems of current democracy is that voters are too inflexible and avoid stopping voting for major parties if they push bad policies, or ones they disagree with. Or go to different parties with similiar agendas, scared of voting outside of what they are used to, or for parties branded as far right.
More referendums and direct democracy would be one way to get better policies which avoid the agency problems between ideological left wing extremists acting an an authoritarian manner where the people's are too party loyalist for their own good, to kick all of them out. The result wouldn't be always in line with the cultural right, but mass migration for example has been quite unpopular in most countries. The same people running a system that demonizes the alternative views, passes hate speech laws, and does as it pleases is not going to allow enough of that, of course. I do sincerely believe it would lead to something closer to a country run by the people, for the people, and better governance than that of ideological far leftist extremists who see opposition to their agenda as completely illegitimate. Even if it is not the ideal governance, it would be an important improvement.
This reminds me of the assignments to write an essay that reddit mods would give people. I am not going to do that. If you have anything to reply to the points already made, which I spent time to articulate my perspective with various issues then I might reply to that. If you are unable to do so, for whatever reason, including you not understanding them, thinking that they are unclear, or because you do not want to address the argument, that would be fine. But you shouldn't have asked for more. It isn't fine if you are trying to promote "I don't understand you" as an attack, but I am not really going to spend more time over it.
Please respect the time and effort spent by the people you are discussing with here and stop asking me to write significantly more so I make points that you would supposedly find sufficiently understandable to address.
There are definetly plenty of those with more mixed feelings. Experience shows that whenever there is an opportunity for scientific authoritarianism that gives scientists special status, whether with covid, climate change, or scientific marxism, plenty of them are willing to jump along. And they don't need to be all of them or even a majority, to be highly influential.
Calling something a science, and censor opposition as unscientific, are strong elements of modernity's fundamentalism. In a way that is convincing of plenty of scientists. Another possibility is those in charge to say that certain views are scientific truth and exclude from journals those who aren't going along.
Trained in a culture of peer science and trusting authority of the scientific clique, many are going to go along with it. Especially if they already have pro left wing biases.
This means that being a good scientist and doing science effectively is different and can in fact be opposite with the class of scientists and people called scientists, and their prejudices and preferences, which can show group think, and unwillingness to examine their conclusions.
It is the courtier phenomenon. Where power goes, there are always some people who go along with it. Another aspect of this can be that the media and people who belong in factions promoting group think have a benefit in associating science/scientists with particular views, and fostering a divide between them and then those who raise objections or oppose certain policies. Another facet of this are some edgier and more fantastical objections to claims on political charged issues that are focused upon over more substantive disagreements. For example
microchips
vs
Origin of covid. Lockdowns. Vaccine effectiveness.
Add to that censorship of dissent, and it would be a mistake to expect the people we have given the title scientists, or rational, to succeed in opposing this, any more an ideology given the title scientific will succeed at being scientific, just because it claims to be that, or to aspire to that.
Of course ethnic categorizations relating to race has been influenced by more than past centuries white culturally right leaning westerners being prejudiced. And relate to actual real cultural spheres, and differences among groups and biological differences. There is a relation between race and broader ethnic groups and civilizations.
Italians, Irish, etc qualified as white.
Obviously, other non white groups and progressives have been part of this and created categorisations like Hispanic. Blacks obviously support the black categorization. Progressives of course support various categorizations relating to race, including whites being treated as a different category to non whites. Plenty of non whites support non only non progressive categorisations of race, as a way that makes sense for them, but even to an extend the progressive categorization for self serving reasons.
The narrative of Noel Ignatiev of evil white racists conspiring to create the concept of race, while his faction is just trying to deconstruct racism and prejudices, by destroying whiteness is inaccurate. On basically every claim he is making.
I do think that certain categorizations that make sense in an American case, and as a non American I am adamant in promoting them even when arguing with Americans, make some less sense in other contexts.
For example in the case of USA, white is more of a primary ethnicity while in the case of Europe, being European is more of an aspect of your primary ethnic categorization. Same with blackness and black Americans, in relation to Africans.
Anyway, I don't see why social constructs are illegitimate things as a result of prejudice, rather than categorisations based often in valid and important things, including biology. Not always, I would like to undermine the progressive way of seeing race without going full in opposite direction. And there is some validity in opposing the most hardcore white supremacist way of categorising the world, with again not going to the opposite direction which is the antiwhite supremacist categorisations done by progressives. Where these progressives also associate being indigenous with being non white, or Europeans existing at all as a group with prejudice and white supremacy.
The post, I think, is about creating a consistent standard. People were going off of intuition; better to create a more legible system.
I disagree. It is about maintaining one sided standards and fails to oppose a fundamental aspect of what created double standards. We are not going to get a consistent standard by not directly opposing the excessive ethnonationalism for progressive stack groups, especially for Jews and blacks. Which is also advocated in basis of lived experience.
To change the current issue you need to address it. By aligning the issue of lived experience, with respecting the people who have lived experience, he gets as further away from what we need to do, which is disrespecting the black, jewish, and other chauvinist perspective. Now, I am not saying to go to the opposite extreme, but having an understanding how we did reach the extremism in favor of blacks, Jews, and others and stopping this, and aknowledging the reality of what happened is fundamental.
Legitimizing "lived experience" gets us away from a consistent standard. We must consider the consequences towards those being asked to accept this.
Scott and the rationalists and EA types, are part of the liberal and Democrat establishment and network. How are they going to get us to consistent standards if their network includes biggest Democratic donors, key rationalists argue to replace the red tribe of texas, they support mass migration at least in part (being charitable that this is just a part of it) due to ethnic hostility and wanting to replace their white and right wing outgroups, willing to support George Soros over Orban, when the first is further away from a consistent standard than the later?
Scott is part of the problem of liberal excesses, and not part of those who are going to effectively reform it. At best he is going to make some limited hangout criticisms while still supporting the faction that has said prejudices. And his limited hangout it still going to be one sided in the same direction, which you could always make excuses for.
What if a group does create remarkable achievements and stands to deserve honor and respect? Would you be in favour of condemning anyone who does "cultural appropriation" of that group?
This is a misunderstanding. I am saying that people care too much about cultural appropriation because they value the status of these ethnic groups more.
I actually think some level of cultural appropriation is part and parcel of what everyone does, being influenced by everyone else. Especially of the most successful groups.
I do think it is fair to exclude people who don't belong in your group from pretending to belong there.
I do support some desire for some general cultural authenticity and exclusion, but my views are too nuanced to say I fall in the camp with hysteric reactions, and there are as always many grey lines I am unsure about, and certain issues I am more adamant about.
I think we should care less about people doing this at expense of blacks, jews, native americans, etc. The reason there is such a hysterical reaction is precisely because of the racist extremism in favor of them.
Again, try to listen to what I am saying instead of trying to fit it into a narrative about cultural appropriation. Directly denouncing the excess of putting said groups on the pedestal, is the only way we move to consistent standards. While denouncing the people stating this, and not accepting this point is how we allow the inconsistent standards to persist. Cultural appropriation isn't the main lens we should see this. The correct lens is that our issue is one of mainly excessive demanded status for progressive stack groups.
Of which, the supporters of this try to sideline by not acknowledge, or by calling what is happening to be a conspiracy theory.
This isn't to say we shouldn't simultaneously put correct standards on the cultural appropriation issue, in the ways I articulated which covered small aspects of it.
You're basically agreeing that cultural appropriation is bad here. Non-members trying to gain entry into the group is a large part of what cultural appropriation is. And the main point of the post is- who does qualify as a person who fits in the group? Someone with certain genetics matching the group, someone with lived experience matching the group, or a combination of both?
I read the post and articulated my different opinion which actually isn't the opposite from Scott's position, except I don't use lived experience as a term and being more exclusive on broader groups and I think ancestry does matter. And also, I think that focusing on the issues with biggest double standards directly over more irrelevant cases is how you promote good rules. For one can claim to oppose SJWs on say the trans issue, but adopt a SJW party line on Jews or blacks.
American Jews and non Jewish europeans have plenty similiar in their cultures in many ways but have a separate ethnic identity and ideology relating to that. There are important cultural differences too. Different tribes sharing in part cultural aspects, does not change the fact they have differences in culture, but also as ethnic tribes.
It is operating like a spy, or a fifth collumnist which is what "we are white, whites suck" and "we Jews and non whites should work against whites" mentality that I have a problem with.
Accepting different groups on the basis that they are like you, while they retain a different identity, and you suppress yours to accommodate and appease theirs will result in such group dominating yours. While your group loses its self determination and territory and culture.
But this goes further than most of the issues called cultural appropriation. It is about respecting legitimate rights of other groups. Which is not what we got today, but a culture of extremism hiding under pretensions of moderation that is about one sided double standards that are destructive towards non progressive ethnic groups.
When he said it's "white people's fault", I thought he meant more in a way that a lot of white people would identify as natives if they could, because natives are cool. And that he'd probably include a lot of Jews in that group of people who'd want to pretend to be cool Natives. Not that whites are evil racists who try to oppress other races but Jews aren't evil racists. You went on a long tangent about Jews, and I think the point of it was that Jews shouldn't identify as white unless they're primarily white? That feels weird to me, like telling an Italian they shouldn't identify as white unless they place their white identity before their Italian identity.
I believe you are sanewashing and Scott knows what he is doing and is willingly trying to follow a pretense of being a non radical centrist, while also having a position that is lopsided in a certain direction. Also, I genuinely think it is unfair for Jews like himself with his strong Jewish identity and hostile towards whites perspective to be considered normally belonging to the white ethnic group. And it is also unfair and represents reality inaccurately to blame whites singularilly while covering up for the Jewish role. He deserves to be criticized for promoting "I am white, whites to blame", when singularly blaming whites. He should simply not have said it, rather than trying to justify it.
As I articulated previously, blaming whites because excuses, is the ideology of anti white white liberals and anti white non whites. Which certainly influences people to put a knee in events like the BLM riots, or identify as non white groups to gain benefits.
This ideology can also lead to warped views on foreign conflicts like this ridiculous, entirely one sided racist propaganda by Michael Moore. https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/03/04/michael-moore-palestinians-arent-israels-persecutors-its-been-white-european-christians-slaughtering-jews/
So, I find it weird that you don't have a problem with Scott blaming whites, and are willing to excuse it.
Here is the point that is more nuanced than your paraphrase:
TLDR in a general sense, if you belong in a category that is more fuzzy and more on the edge, it matters a great deal, in regards to whether you are part of X, if you are philo-X group and seeing them as your group, and not as antagonistic to your primary identity category. If you have at all another identity, it must be weaker and you ought to compromise and accept the X identity, to belong in X. Of course, if your category isn't even in the edge, then you can't be part of said groups. You still ought to be treated with more respect if you are outside category but friendly, than if you have some commonalities but hostile.
That feels weird to me, like telling an Italian they shouldn't identify as white unless they place their white identity before their Italian identity.
Why doesn't it feel weird to you that I should accept Scott Aarronson who says replace the red tribe of Texas, or Bret Stephens who says to replace the white working class while being a Jewish chauvinist, or Michele Goldberg that says to replace them as a part of the white category? I find it concerning that you find such views, or Jews who claim they aren't white, are things that shouldn't be relevant to us.
Of course Italians are not in the edge of white category, if we are willing to adopt a broad enough category that would allow most American Jews to belong in it. Those Jews would be at the edge. And if the categorization is narrow enough to put Italians at the edge, then Jews would be outside.
Italians do not have an antagonistic relationship with whites in the same way Jews have. Although whiteness in the USA is partly anglo whiteness coded. But certainly, the value of broader identities does relate to how you treat people on your team. You also sidestepped the Jews who themselves don't identify as white which is really important. Also, unlike Italians, Jews are more on the edge of white identity due to their ancestry, and also their more hostile historical relationship, not being Christians, and having seen Rome historically as their enemy. Italians have been a core part of European and Western civilization. It is in fact the case that unlike Italians, including south Italians, some Jews that are more numerous in Israel than in the USA should be excluded on the basis of not fitting at all in a categorization of whiteness, because they don't look white even in a broader sense.
I would say even for people who more clearly belong there, some element of broader identity and compromise of primary identity must matter too. Historically some of the biggest atrocities have been done by empires against the group they touted as their broader category. Like against working classes and the people for universalist communists. We see the GAE now being incredibly destructive against Europeans, even though they are the backbone of the global american empire. I guess ideologicaly it doesn't claim to be pro european exactly but it has been based mainly on Europeans. It is claiming now to be fighting for Ukrainian self determination.
The imperialist Japanese were Japanese supremacists but also pan-asianists claiming to be fighting for all Asian people against European imperialism. This did not change their atrocities against Chinese. And of course the Nazis were German supremacists and didn't treat various european ethnic groups as part of the same team.
The reality is that there is a serious issue among the Jews of a Jewish supremacist and anti-white Christian ideology. And large double standards. Same for non Jews who have adopted the Jewish perspective.
In the USA, whites are an ethnic group. One that various white groups end up assimilating into. Of course if you are hostile to whites and put your primary identity first and see whites as a threat to your actual people, there is a problem with you being considered white.
It is important to be part of the white team, to not consider white non Jews a threat towards Jews you prioritize, but to see non Jewish whites as your team.
It is also important for your people to not write articles and tweets and say that you aren't white. Especially in respond to controversies like a black Goldberg saying that ww2 violence were inter-white struggles, and then as response many articles trying to promote the party line that Jews aren't white.
Also important to not try to get the Jews treated as part of the non white minorities in terms of diversity benefits and being treated as oppressed.
In addition to articles, it seems most Jews on reddit but majority of Jews are liberals and lean in that direction, subscribe to the Jewish supremacist idea and don't consider themselves as part of a broader white ethnic community. But see whites as those who create a racial caste that oppressed Jews and other minorities, but also want non Jews to not have a problem for Jews relating to Israel, or treated as privilidged. They want Jews to be treated as an oppressed minority and have privileges.
At least one upvoted also considers it a gentile, western supremacist idea. They have a wildly self centered ethnic supremacist ideology that is wildly uncharitable and racist towards non Jews and against white Christians. And just see themselves as victims of discrimination. Distorting history to create a wild one sided story of monstrous other ethnic groups and pure Jews who are just targets of supremacists. Much rhetoric there also in line with Noel Ignatiev's. The truth is that their enemy isn't white supremacists but white moderates and what they want is self hating whites who are Jewish supremacists.
Some also argue for the idea that Jews can't be white due to being middle eastern, which is upvoted there as is upvoted the idea that white supremacists are those unwilling to accept Jews as white when those ideas are in contradiction. Seems that they consider non Jews having standards to be white supremacy. Including a standard that has a problem with this type of racist anti white hostility, and that it matters in not considering them white. Others claim that some Jews look white, and other Jews don't.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/16f2nh0/jews_arearent_white/
So of course they aren't like Italians who don't have the same view of whites and Christians, as the Jews do. I find it completely inexplicable to see this kind of behavior and accept putting said Jews in the white categorization.
Only a subset of Jews that are a minority of Jews who reject such narratives and see themselves genuinely in the same team as white Christians like Amy Wax, have a position that fits white ethnic categorization. Strong Jewish identity due to the commoniality in Jewish ethnocentric narrative of anti european and anti christian narrative, can be in fact an obstacle to this. As I mentioned with the Japanese imperialists and Nazis, supremacist views can be an obstacle for cooperation and peace even for ethnic groups that are more central categories of the broader category, like the Japanese for East Asians, and Germans for Europeans. Although in that case they saw themselves more as the leaders of said groups but also had supremacist ideas that saw other parts of said group as a threat to their ethnic group.
So for Jews, including American Jews to fit into the white categorisation need to get over their extreme dislike of pro whites, europeans, and Christians. And also to stop undermining white identity because Jews are more peripheral to it than other ethnic groups. Jews need to compromise their Jewish ethnonationalism. But even then, only some of them which are mainly American Jews are going to fit, both themselves and in how the see themselves and are seen, many Israeli especially Jews are never going to be seen as white because they don't look white. And that is fine. I am critical of their ethnic chauvinism, Israeli Jews who are brown can be brown, they just need to be more reasonable people and drop anti european and anti christian one sided narratives. Those Jews who try to apply to themselves the categorization white, which are probably the more white looking Jews, are obligated to do that even more so.
Another alternative, is among those of the relatively white looking Ashkenazi who don't want to see other whites as their people, to acknowledge they don't fit into the white ethnic team, but into the Jewish team, and it is fair to be seen as outsiders to the white group and not a white supremacist, or so called antisemitic notion. But making peace with the white team and the fact that non Jewish whites who identify as their own group is a fine thing to exist and also as a group have their rights. Having an honorable and not racist position, instead of the wildly one sided racist propaganda also certain non Jews promote both directly and indirectly by attacking those who have a problem with it.
Applying consistent standards would have us reach the conclusion that Jews like Scott do not pass the criteria to fit in belonging in a white team/ethnic categorization in the same way he belongs in the Jewish categorization. And can not speak for whites being to blame, based on the authenticity of criticizing his own group. While applying those same standards would have us reach that Amy Wax does pass said criteria.
It would also have us reach the conclusion that some individuals are friendly towards groups they don't belong to. Lets take Calvin Robinson who is black, he seems friendly to white English, even though he is not one of them and he opposes mass migration. Of course his views are the opposite from representative among blacks living in Britain.
If Scott identified as white but didn't say it is white people's fault, and had a history of being more balanced and therefore pro white than he has been and was willing to promote something balanced and more reflective of reality, his identification would be more acceptable.
To go back to the general case:
Putting the requirement of friendship towards their outgroups as something that progressive identity groups and their supporters must follow, to fit in various categories like white, or as "anti racist", or "non racist", is going to reduce culture war conflict. And in regards to what is fair towards the group that must accept others, it is important for those trying to fit, to pass criteria and actually fit. In addition to that, to identify with the people they claim the identity of. The most reasonable part of which is not trying to harm, dislike and undermine the group they are trying to join, and claim to belong in. And the only way to have a general rule, is to understand that such rules are today not applied generally but some groups (like Jews or blacks) are allowed excessive exclusivity with cancel culture towards others violating their honor, while for other groups to have standards is treated as the suspect, or supremacist position.
Having to follow such criteria and requirements to fit also has the benefit of being the truth.
Scott is missing the point or has to miss it based on how far he can go.
We aren't dealing with a consistent standard about cultural appropriation but an honor culture than mandates special status and respect about certain special identity groups which is also hostile against other ones like especially white Christians, on the exact basis of sympathy for the first at expense of the later.
Reducing the pro jewish, pro black, or pro native american nationalism, and treating such groups as inherently less deserving of their current status of honor and respect, will reduce the problems of "cultural appropriation".
"Lived Experience" is used mainly to argue that as a black/jewish/brown/whatever I understand certain things about my own people's suffering and reality and shouldn't be challenged, and it would be racist to do that. This is usually an one sided narrative that blames others too much and deflects excessively blame for their group. This should be opposed. People self identifying in such a way, does infringe on the rights of others. They promote extreme identity politics at expense of other groups.
Are there areas where it doesn't and we could tolerate their way of identifying without suffering such consequences? There are, but we should be very careful with that.
Both on the trans issue, and in here, Scott's position leads to siding with the "lived experience" claimants even in the way that their behavior would be harmful towards others. Because the tolerance of their lived experience is weaponized to crush dissent and enforce self serving narratives in their favor, or force people to accept things they consider untrue.
I will also say that while I don't think we should have the cult of personality we got now towards groups like Jews, blacks, and others, I also don't think that Jews, native Americans, or blacks should have to accept peoples who don't fit into their group, in their group. And neither should I.
Even though I don't belong in their group, I really do like to say what I believe is true and not to be forced to say what is untrue. So I am not going to say that Rachel Dolezal is black, because she isn't. Same with the trans issue. The authoritarianism in favor of everyone else accepting their narrative of themselves is something that shouldn't be missed when someone promotes arguments about respecting people's lived experience.
Now, if she wants to live among the black community, I am not going to stop her.
I realize the more sensitive among my readers might be worrying that I, as a white person, have no right to criticize the Mi’kmaq Indians’ membership policies. This is a fair concern. But I worry that all of this is white people’s fault.
I don't know if he is trolling us deliberately, but he just pulled the Jewish meme of "as a fellow white, it is white people fault", in an article that includes in him a arguing about the importance of his Jewish identity and that there are hoops one must jump to belong to his particular group, or others. Then he argued that we should still be tolerant to edge cases that had a lived experience as part of such groups.
Well, there are various articles and even tweets by Jews saying that they aren't white. And it has been used in relation to this exact debate about how to treat different groups with the arguement that Jews should be treated differently as another oppressed minority.
We also have had various examples of Jews like Jon Steward argue that white people are acting badly and that WE whites have done bad. And then in other instances, Jon argues that Jews and blacks should ally to get whitey.
That is Jews is the US and whites is the OTHER.
it is also unfair to blame singularilly whites for this issue when if only whites voted and decided it would be the more right wing party that would win elections. And:
a) by just blaming whites it covers up for the disproportionate role of Jews, some of which don't identify as white, and others might be willing to still identify as Jews and see whites as hostile other. Whatever the case even if they were to count as white, Jewish whites had had a disproportionate role that ought not be hidden as part of just a general white problem. Especially in regards to NGOs, we see plenty of influential Jewish NGOs that are explicitly Jewish NGO's and I am not aware of influential currently white NGO's as explicitly white NGO's. Indeed some Jewish NGOs like ADL are especially influential and important in promoting this kind of morality of intersectional supremacy under the guise of anti racism, where they even adopted a definition that one can't be racist against whites.
b) Obviously American blacks have had a healthy influence in such debates directly and even more so indirectly.
c) White non Jewish liberals and plenty of supposed moderates and some conservatives to a lesser extend, respect and succumb to the prejudices of groups like blacks or Jews who as community do have their problems of ethnocentric racism in favor of themselves and against their outgroup. By blaming just whites for those issues, Scott who is engaging in identity politics in doing so and fails to be neutral, is repeating this problem of transferred nationalism and of deflecting any blame from non whites, to blame whites.
It is extremely important to understand that transferred nationalism is a key part of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to those who aren't part of those tribes. And actual tribalism for their own group in an intersectional alliance for others who belong there.
Like a white Christian who claims that as a Christian he follows the Torah and so is a Jew and so Jews should open their borders to mass Christian migration, Scott's relation with the broader white ethnic group is more complicated at best. It is in fact hostile in important ways. Plus some of the people he promotes and more strongly associates like Scott Aarronson who calls to replace the red tribe of Texas or Mathew Yglesias who has argued that Israel should have more restrictive jewish migration or that is fine, and the USA should have mass migration to have one billion people, there is a clear seperation between what tribes they prioritise. Yglesias even thought that the election of Trump would result in jews being beaten in the streets.
Like New York Times Goldberg writting "We will replace them", Scott Aarronson's call of replacement was ethnically charged, especially when one reads his response to negative comments, whining about antisemitism. What he wanted was to be able to dish both racism, and extremism against his political opposition without backlash.
The mask of neutral rationalists is hiding the reality underneath.
Ultimately, in relation to the Jews I kind of agree with parts of Scott's view, of showing some tolerance for cases that qualify. There is in fact a biological difference between Europeans and even Ashkenazi Jews. But in a certain more broader white category, Ashkenazi Jews and even some others could fit, there are many Jews in Israel from north africa who are too brown to fit, but most American jews look white enough to fit in a broader white category. And there are American Jews who see whites in general as part of their team and people, in a way that Scott doesn't, and most Jews don't. In their case their Jewish identity is more like another white American subgroup identity.
Historically, before late 19th century and 20th century mass migrations of more nationalistic and anti-european and anti-christian radical Jews, and the organization of a lobby and organizations of such nature, the Jews in the USA fitted more normally as part of the white category and behaved with less antagonism.
For decades, and today many Jews do see themselves us a seperate tribe and have an antagonistic relationship with non Jewish whites. Especially the Jews who matter the most in influence, of powerful organizations. They see whites and Christians as the threatening other. So it is inaccurate and having their cake and eating it too, to consider Jews like Scott as belonging in the same white ethnic category as non Jewish whites. The double standards among Jews about supporting the Jewish ethnostate and restrictive immigration of Jews there, while supporting anti native racism, antiwhite racism and mass migration is rather notable.
Also current mainstream Liberalism is not a neutral political agenda but ethnically charged against white Christians.
Scott has a strong Jewish identity. In Hungary he sides with Soros who sees Europeans as a threat to Jews and other minorities and he supports utterly destructive to survival of european nations mass migrations and calls one of the democratically elected leaders who oppose this, in Orban, with the label dictator. In an article that attacks Orban precisely for opposing mass migration. So please, especially if you are a Jewish liberal/neocon, with a strong Jewish identity, you should stop with the fellow white identification. Just like you wouldn't accept someone with a strong white and Christian identity who was as hostile to Jews as you are to white Christians, doing the same against Jews.
I do think some Jews like Amy Wax do identify with whites in a manner that is respectable and genuine and deeper. And a Jew can also not identify with them but also be more moderate and have a more balanced and just worldview than what is promoted by Scott, or those even worse than him.
TLDR in a general sense, if you belong in a category that is more fuzzy and more on the edge, it matters a great deal, in regards to whether you are part of X, if you are philo-X group and seeing them as your group, and not as antagonistic to your primary identity category. If you have at all another identity, it must be weaker and you ought to compromise and accept the X identity, to belong in X. Of course, if your category isn't even in the edge, then you can't be part of said groups. You still ought to be treated with more respect if you are outside category but friendly, than if you have some commonalities but hostile.
Race is obviously not just a social construct but both a biological construct AND in part a social construct and also does not count as a social construct in the way many people using that term mean.
How can it be both a social construct and not a social construct? Since a lot of the people using the term seem to be using it to mean arbitrary, existing only in our imaginations, when it isn't. Or as something in the exclusion of a biological group. To the extend there is a social construct is based in large part to biology, or as a synonym for broader or narrower ethnic group, where there other robust things about it related to shared culture, ethnic identification by them and by others, and also relate to ancestry.
Most ethnic groups have been described as races in the past.
In general most things called social constructs by deconstructionists and overly dismissive people are not that. The connotations carried with the words social constructs in such cases are misleading. Same would apply to someone who is pro barter economy, or pro communism saying that money is a social construct. Or even ethnic groups.
Certain racial categories are fuzzier and an American invention: whites and blacks.
Yes there is an element in social categorization but white and black people clearly exist as biological races.
The idea that not only the freedom to consume drugs matters, but also the freedom from addiction, or from crime, is not something that can be so easily dismissed as "magically" giving an imposition. It is a real trade off where there is a net loss for freedom. Similiarly a hunter gatherer society might lack certain rules, but the freedom of its members is undermined by all the crime, especially the murders and the rapes.
Not taking that seriously is an intellectual blindspot which makes policy failures inevitable. Especially a blindspot that is dismissive from you when I already made the argument. So what I would conclude is that you would just prefer those genuine problems of freedom relating to bad choices that affect others but also might result in a loss of autonomy for the person it self, to not be taken seriously. But they should be put on the scale, even if you prefer they weren't.
Now, the Portugal case is a more complicated one, and a case of a decriminalization that is closer to the center than what happened in Portland Oregon. Which isn't to say I consider it centrist, but definetly closer than Oregon's.
I don't have the one sidedly positive view you have about Portugal's reforms. See bellow for a contrary view.
Even the Wanshington post which rather partisan in the liberal direction is willing to promote some criticism
Overdose rates have hit 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
Portugal still forces drug addicts to follow treatments and selling drugs is illegal. Even its supporters claim that "Cops still work aggressively to break up major drug gangs and arrest people committing drug-related crimes like theft. They also disrupt open-air drug markets like the ones that have emerged in some U.S. cities."
Cops also pressure drug users to follow programs.
The reality is that the decriminalization side who bring Portugal as a positive example, or claim to be trying to do something similar, tend to be quite partisan and lacking in intellectual humility that requires genuinely dealing with trade offs. Ultimately, they operate based on tunnel vision. The end result is the negative story of the problems I mentioned of rise of drug abuse, violent crimes, certain areas becoming full of junkies. If this side were seriously trying to deal things in a wiser manner from various angles, some of these issues would have been ameliorated.
See also this: https://unherd.com/newsroom/blue-states-are-learning-the-wrong-lessons-from-portugal/
On all sorts of issues we have seen this vulgar excessive policy and movement as more representative of what you are getting in response to the more conservative and restrictive in those directions past, rather than a right balance between getting rid of only some conservative restrictions but only in a considerate way. Or even compensating by some new restrictions like forcing drug users to get treatment. Changing things while retaining the benefits of the more conservative time is really hard. At worst is like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Since this discussion is about Oregon, bringing up Portugal as a winning move is trying to find a loophole. When actually the vulgar policy is what decriminalization movement is more represented by today and pushes.
The pro decriminalization side in the USA promised in fact that they could push not only drug decriminalization but other policies of decriminalization, reduction of imprisonment without rising crime rates, and other problems. This failed to be the case. Contrarily those that wisely predicted the rising violence and social problems were proven correct.
This shows why it is so important that in practice we can and should distinguish between a law and order side and a decriminalization side whose approach does undermine law and order in outcomes.
CICO is just a fact which we know from countless experiments of bodybuilders who count the calories they eat and from randomized control trials.
I ate vast quantities of extremely fatty and oily luxury cuisine, to the point that I had ¥9000 breakfasts five days in a row.
I guess this supports the fact that while the environment matters, people are also going to eat more out of their own desire and change the environment too. If there was a greater share of people with your desires over average Japanese, this would affect the Japanese food industry...
At the same time, my subjective experience matched up to when I accidentally adopted a diet similar to the potato diet recommended by the chemical hunger crowd - I felt like I had vast amounts of energy and simply ate whenever I was hungry or wanted to taste something interesting. In contrast, when I used willpower to eat an incredibly restrictive diet consisting largely of unpalatable food (protein sparing modified fasting) I found myself with intense cravings and lethargy that I only overcame with the usage of caffeine and whatever other stimulants they included in preworkout powders). This is why I blamed the pollutants rather than any sort of moral difference - because that's how it matched up to what I actually experienced.
French fries are a food that was associated with obesity but potatoes are otherwise a satiating food.
The best diet advice is against people going with very restrictive diets either in terms of removing food categories, or dropping drastically calories. Going more smoothly down but keeping at it and not reverting back, until you reach the point where it would be a good weight to maintain. Of course if you go very restrictive in diet you will have significant cravings.
There are people who have success with more restrictive diets, but it isn't necessary. And it necessitates more investigation and effort to get all the vital vitamins, minerals.
If you examine the history of food, there have been restrictive fad diets that were unnecessarily restrictive. I am more about wise self sacrifice and willpower relating to that.
Also, the willpower required to turn things around is different one someone becomes obese. Becoming that changes your appetite. It is still worth it, even if harder and there are also always ways you can fall down worse. Avoiding getting diabetes, heart disease, and other problems is well worth it, or reducing the severity. But it is even more important to do things right early, so people don't become obese to begin with.
Anyway, you decided to buy the meals you mention, and same previously. Surely, willpower plays a role in that? Although it was still bellow what you usually eat in the USA if you lost weight. Maybe you also were more active.
I guess a part of this has to do with having the right norms individually and collectively, and the term willpower might not capture it entirely, because it also relates with correct knowledge and action relating to that. While another part of it does relate with self sacrifice for one's own greater benefit but also a will to promote this norm in general. Moreover, like it or not, how much individuals decide to consume does affect the industry. And what the industry tries to market and promote, does affect the consumer.
The biggest difference from my perspective was that if you try to eat cheaply in Japan without access to a kitchen you would largely be eating riceballs, seaweed, fish, soybeans and other largely healthy choices. Trying to do the same in western nations leads to eating some incredibly unhealthy products (HFCS, McDonalds, etc), and this is the kind of issue that I think a healthy government would step in and address - but god knows I wouldn't trust current western governments to do this well...
Yes, I agree.
You mentioned Japan, but I found myself losing weight there extremely quickly and easily without making any changes to my moral behaviour or character.
By living in a society governed by a different morality, you were exposed to a less obesogenic environment, with smaller plates, less hyper palatable food, I probably should have mentioned this too, but also food choices that are less calorie dense, and more satiating probably too. You probably also mimicked how other people behaved and how they ate.
Basically, you benefited by the fact that you were living among the Japanese in a society organized and ruled by their laws and public morality. Yes that does kind of change some of the calculus of individual vs collective influences which are the result of multiple individuals behaving in a way that promotes a certain dominant behaviors and habits.
Also, in comparison to someone consuming enough calories that would make them overweight, by behaving in a way that is better for your long term, you did change your behavior in a manner that was an improvement morally. The amount of self sacrifice once society adopts better norms might not be that great, indeed. This is a selling point!
It actually isn't that big of a sacrifice, to follow from the beginning the kind of habit that avoid harmful drugs, don't eat too much calories, you walk around (which studies have shown to reduce depression). The point is that it is a worthy trade off and the decline of moralism has lead to greater suffering that is definitely not worth it. I guess, it is debatable how difficult it is to do so once you have experienced the other habits, and what would happen if we put obese people in places like Japan on the long term and where their weight would stabilize at. I know what would happen if you replaced the Japanese with enough of the obese, Japan will become fat as they will be following those habits and norms and foods and the food industry, laws and public expectations, shaming, all will change.
I found that when I (accidentally at the time) lowered my exposure to the kind of environmental pollutants hypothesised to cause obesity what followed was a sudden increase in energy and a decrease in appetite. Previously I'd lost weight by caloric restriction and strict dietary control which required a lot of willpower, but that loss was correlated with a lot of negative side effects and lethargy (as the chemical hunger hypothesis would suggest) - whereas I actually had to exert willpower in order to avoid losing weight on the "cut out pollutants" diet, rather than the opposite.
But why are the pollutants the issue and not the fact that the available food you had to choose from was less likely to make you fat? Because lower calories and more satiating per calorie. Less amount of oils probably too.
Some foods are also inherently more satiating. Harder to become fat on them than on fast food. Hence, by changing the dominant diet and promoting more Japan style the norm that people should eat say balanced meals, not too many calories, prefer more satiating foods, the result will be a reduction in obesity.
Too bad for the fast food industry which will decline, but a type of food industry is here to stay even with people eating less.
Like the perceived impossibility of crime in places like El Salvador where Bukele was able to deal with it in a manner where the trade off was certainly worth it.
I guess, one could note that action is more effective than convinsing people. Maybe just changing the available food choices would end up resulting in less obesity than just talking about individual responsibility. Although there is a symbiotic relationship between big business and consumers consuming bigger plates, and more addictive hyper palatable food.
I'm willing to believe that our society has less self-sacrifice in it - hell, I'm substantially less willing to shoulder sacrifices for the sake of my society, but I think that's in large part due to my society endorsing and encouraging things I morally disagree with. There are a bunch of corrupt criminals shoving their faces into the collective trough of society, and I see no reason to make personal sacrifices just to empower them and leave me and my family worse off - as far as I'm concerned, making personal sacrifices in support of the Global American Empire is far more immoral than restricting my circle of care to those close and dear to me.
Well, I agree with you that the GAE isn't worth sacrificing your life for it and that is a hostile empire to you and yours. I sympathize entirely with that. I am also not a keen of the negative influence it has by trying to promote cultural marxism, or the warmongering and color revolutions. I am more talking about sacrifices for the greater good of the people involved.
Indeed, parts of the problems of GAE is anarchotyranny and decriminalization policies promoted by elites like Soros, biggest corporations endorsing BLM, etc, etc. The changes I advocate, including other changes not focused upon here will go against plenty of what the people in charge of GAE preach to the detriment of those under their influence.
I agree with this, but I don't think that actually provides a justification for the "moral failing" hypothesis - the moral failing hypothesis just can't explain what's actually happening. There are just too many odd correlations and relationships within the data for the moral failing hypothesis to be that plausible - at most it can be a small contributor to part of the problem. What's the 'moral failing' explanation for why obesity is correlated with altitude/water-tables? Don't forget that this obesity epidemic is impacting animals as well - it doesn't seem plausible to me that the decrease in willingness to sacrifice for society has caused feral rats to start overeating and getting fat.
I recall reading a lesswrong post linked in the old subreddit which argued convincingly against the chemical hypothesis and directly addressed the water altitude arguement.https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium
Ed Yudkowsky doesn't even accept the truth that is CICO, so don't take this as me endorsing rationalist thinkers as an authority. Just on its own merits I found then when I read it that article to be good and made a better case than the slime mold time mold blog.https://slimemoldtimemold.com/
That article would do a better job arguing specifically against the chemicals hypothesis than I would, so I would recommend you read it for the counter.
The chemical hunger hypothesis is not the default hypothesis for the rise of obesity. The default is that we have a rise of a more obisogenic environment but it is also hard not to see the rise in general of detrimental behaviors related to superstimuli and people avoiding better for long term health of society self sacrifice.
Anyway, the blame of the individual can be reduced by the fact that people are affected by society and by what habits it fosters. And part of the default thesis is that more addictive "hyper palatable" food is affordable and more available to people today.
People eat more calories, and have larger plates.
I think moralism of the kind promoted by certain people which is only about the individual is going to be inadequate and you need greater societal transformations which go further. Japan is an example of a place where the norms at such that promote lower obesity, while their cuisine still has plenty of tasty foods.
One of my points is that if people adopt good habits early, and a society under the reigns of sensible moralism promotes long term greater happiness with less of the worse outcomes that arise from a society that avoids the self discipline. We know for example that is much harder to lose weight after you become obese than to remain fit. Same with drugs, easier to not become addicted than to get rid of the habit. This also relates to the valuable ancient understanding of freedom which isn't the only way of freedom that matters, but it does. Which is about people being free from their vices and living a life that better fulfills their potential. The later also relates with modern understanding, which we have seen in various metrics a decline upon, even if in other metrics we have seen a rise.
Part of the hostility to this kind of moralism has to do also with avoiding blame, and responsibility, but it is true that the decline in such norms has lead to a more irresponsible society with worse consequences for it. So lets admit that unpleasant truth and seek pragmatic responses.
The war on drugs policies in most countries that have been followed have resulted in low prison populations and lack of drug abuse.
In the case of the USA, from what I have read much of the drug related prison population was there related to more serious crimes and they got them related to the drugs. Or drug dealers who sell poison to people. USA is a more violent country with more violent crime and so a larger share of imprisonment actually does have a protective element.
We have seen indeed an increase of crime as decriminalization and reduction of prison population has become the goal.
A small percentage of the population commit the most violent crime, so rather than encouraging more people to join them by decriminalization policies (which will not lead to more people imprisoned as crime increases since we got decriminalization), I would side with the majority preyed upon by violent criminals and against the criminals.
No, it is disingenuous and anti-intellectual to pretend that the phrase law and order assumes the conclusion. The conclusion that law and order is different than decriminalization is a given, and it is an exercise in trying to promote confusion and misunderstanding of reality for political purposes to make this an issue.
The kind of gotcha split hairing that submits nothing that is out there to win everything that is bad for discussion and for societal norms. Not for the motte which doesn't matter in a special way, but for society which matters and is lead astray by any prominence of such approaches. You are trying to shut down discussion here since if we can't distinguish between decriminalization or law and order policies, we can't actually discuss the issue. Furthermore, we are also diverted to discussing what we shouldn't be wasting our time on.
Not everything is negotiable. If your approach is a decriminalization approach, you should own it.
There are sufficient differences between different approaches to earn them different qualitative descriptions. There is really a libertine, decriminalization approach on drugs that supporters value and a law and order approach that is valued by its supporters. Different supporters believe in different narratives, one of which is correct and the other incorrect.
And we should NOT be wasting time making this clear, but spending the time examining the trade offs and wisely choosing based on having wise priorities as a society.
Plus, it is especially unwise to raise this distinction in response to a post that argues that decriminalization drug policies lead to societal decay and drug abuse and law and order policies promote better functioning society. It is like you were hyper focused on winning a point.
I’m making this distinction because decriminalization has not, in fact, raised the prison population. This Laffer-curve equivalent is cute but probably not accurate.
But my comment was about non decriminalization policies. I wasn't commenting about decriminalization resulting in more imprisonment. I was claiming that drug decriminalization lead to destructive societally drug abuse, while drug criminalization policies don't end up having to imprison that many people.
Although, if drug decriminalization policies raise behaviors that are criminal but come along with policies of general decriminalization, including certain areas in a city lacking police enforcement and becoming den of junkies, that is also a problem. Effectively, you raised crime but aren't enforcing it.
You aren't really addressing the substance of the issue.
There is a trivial way to have a perfectly law-abiding society: just don’t have laws. Descend into the Hobbesian state of nature. The problems with this approach make it very unpopular, of course, in a manner I’d describe as lacking “order.” Thus, Portland.
Of course if you don't have laws, you obviously don't have law and order but the opposite and someone defining this as law and order is promoting inaccurate labels and diverting understanding to a lower level. Plus distracting people through having them to discuss with their inaccurate description from the substance of what is happening. Actually, by not having laws you are obviously going to have huge problems with all sorts of crimes, and people in the state of nature societies are full of rape, murder, etc, etc.
The ideal of state of nature being idealic is just a falsehood that crumbles when meeting with reality and actually examining hunter gatherer societies. Civilization, and societal norms don't constrain people from an idealized state, but most of them tend to lead to societies that lack the kind of abuses found in hunter gatherer ones. So, I wouldn't even describe as philosophy but as a wrong concept the idea of an ideal state of nature that is undermined by civilization. I wouldn't describe the very idea of less strict law, if relating to a particular law as anti intellectual as it can be valid of course.
But you absolutely after a point too low and you got libertine norms and decriminalization, and after a point enforcement you got law and order and maybe after a point of strict laws you might even have totalitarian societies. There might be a subjectivity to any of these standards but they do exist and deserve a label so we actually understand the world. Only by disagreeing with an example should one disagree with the label, as general deconstruction is anti-intellectual.
In a similar note, understanding that perfection doesn't exist anywhere, I would distinguish a free society, from an unfree one based on degrees, with the free one having to pass a sufficient standard to qualify. And as always there are trade offs. I am willing to admit that some things I am willing to support might come at a cost of certain freedoms. For example, if I supported lockdowns on the basis of thinking the result to be worth it, I would be asking for a sacrifice of certain freedom, based on seeking a certain benefit.
I would be engaging in partisanship and sophistry if I didn't admit it. Which is part of our problem, people want to have their cake and eat it too. Still, certain trade offs are better in terms of other trade offs since the sacrifice is smaller versus benefit, and even in freedom there is also both a sacrifice but also a benefit. What fits in the proverb of an ounce of prevention, a pound of cure, where the sacrifice is less than the necessitating later sacrifice, including what people are going to have to do to treat themselves and we expect and know they will do to deal with. As the alternative of not caring about even treatment will be even worse. An idealized claim of libertine freedom doesn't deal with that pragmatically.
So when it comes to not admitting anything, I would just marginalize this kind of sophists who try to deconstruct us from useful understanding often in partisan directions, so this kind of fruitless debate is rare and also the public norm and morality is to look down to it and focus on reality. With having an understanding and distinction between sophistry and actual valid points. Indeed a lot of our problems relate with people preferring convenient narratives over what is true. Including politically correct narratives which are meant to shut down further analysis.
If one compares drug decriminalization, or general decriminalization policies with countries that follow law and order, the later not only have less drug abuse but also don't have to imprison that many people. The influence of such policy of drug criminalization for most of the world with such policies is for people successfully be dissuaded from abusing harmful drugs.
Drug abuse is a societal scourge and it is another example how libertine policies and attitutes lead to greater suffering but also greater imposition on people's freedom than the sacrifice required from making good trade offs and abstaining from harmful behavior. For the loss of what is good by becoming addicted to drugs is quite greater.
At the end of the day the libertine's have a cope that their policy leads to worse consequences but people get good and hard what they choose. But we shouldn't accept this cope way off thinking. The worse outcomes and society sucking more under such policies is good reason to not respect this course.
Same could also be said with obesity, or even the long term problems of lack of children.
We live in an age where there is a crisis of lack of smaller self sacrifices, for ultimate a greater negative end. In line with the proverb "An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure".
Now, you can't force people to have children, or not get fat, in the same way you can enforce criminalization of drugs, although there are things you could do, but the moralists on these issues are correct. Contrarily the people who have been spreading apathy and downplaying have had a corrosive effect on society.
Beyond just policy, there is also a morality involved with society that does end up relating to what happens and pressures people and also affects the law. So we can judge and contrast the libertine morality with more conservative one on drugs and other issues.
The ridicule of the people trying to dissuade people from bad behaviors and such campaigns, especially on drugs have been one of the most unjust reactions and self destructive ones for society. That kind of judgementalism against wise moralism is disastrous. We need the right kind of moralism. A good society is one where there is moral pressure in the right directions. While a completely non judgemental society is impossible.
Now that we see decline in various important issues, we should appreciate more the conservatives of the past who maintained certain good mores and actually fought to preserve them. Of course you need the right balance of enforcement, or conservatism, but modern conservatives have mostly not been too much on the excessive conservative side in the recent past on such issues. Seeing the effect of liberals taking control I do appreciate actual conservatives more, while in the past I had more mixed feelings about them. People should go back and see what each faction was pushing and claiming, examine how things played out and praise those who got them right, and criticize those who got them wrong.
Oh and the point is good trade offs and knowing what you are doing instead of relying on wishful thinking. Drug restriction policies have had a good track record in modernity. So the idea is for a general ethic of societal discipline for long term good on important areas. Still, no reason to enforce restrictions in a manner that the excessive restriction is more damaging to society than the gain. Or at least to persist where it would be unwise. See covid lockdowns which have been the more excessive uncharted waters type of policy, although serious enough diseases could justify such impositions.
Anti HBD is used to promote discrimination based on the idea that underperformers are oppressed by evil racist groups. Moreover, to the extend that there is redistribution from one ethnic group in favor of others, then HBD reveals this fact and that rather than contempt for inequality remaining, appreciation for being helped can be the more honest and ethical response.
Anti HBD promotes discrimination, mistreatment of those who don't buy into it and is part of the lysenkoist regime where people whose views don't fit to it are slandered or implied to be nazi or nazi adjesent. This kind of regime leads to a lot of discirmination and worse. It leads to good people censored and losing their career. It has lead to murders too as in the Soviet Union.
It is a bad thing to slander and keep down people who believe something that is true. Truth matters. I would also say that it is a bad thing to promote falsehoods and people who promote them to have high status due to doing so.
However it is also detrimental relating to the problems of suppressing facts. You can't adequately deal with problems if you are living in a fantasy world. For example, if like most American liberals you are polled to have a wrong idea of black criminality and police shooting of blacks, then you are going to reach the wrong recommendations about what ought to be done, and even consider the correct policies to be racist.
Indeed, part of correct response to crime that could be effective could even involve say racial profiling. Knowing the facts leads to a more informed decision which can lead to less crime victims and a better society. Indeed, ironically black Americans would probably benefit more by policies that are realistic and focuses more than a politically correct regime would upon the demographic that a very disproportionate share of the violent crime which is young black men.
You are making a circular argument since by using the term discrimination, you seem to be using it under the connotation of prejudice, and unfairness.
I would also consider HBD and being even more willing to oppose mass migration of foreigners because many would be of lower human capital and net drain financially, to also be a case of non unethical/prejudiced narrative, but in fact the opposite as the idea that a people are not sovereign and don't have self determination to be ruled in favor of their interests and should be pathologically altruist in favor of foreign groups at their expense would be anti native racist. Knowing HBD helps people take a more informed decision on issues like mass migration. Which is one of the reasons is suppressed, so people take a more uninformed pro migration decision.
That being said I do think certain HBD narratives could be used to justify bad things and should be kept down. We have seen them in motte more so in the Israel/Palestinian conflict where certain posters have justified violation of human rights and destruction of Palestinians in part by using the arguement of them being inferior to the superior race of the Jews. I do think this kind of support of destruction of a group is obviously incredibly unethical. But we should be supressing and treating as taboo and being unpleasant and willing to give backlash, and keeping out of influence to the people who have such view, this kind of narrative/viewpoint, not HBD as a whole.
We should be hostile to "We do better and we are superior, give us all your stuff" for the same reason that we should be hostile towards "We do worse, give us all your stuff so we aren't inferior" deserves hostility. So a certain ethical prior is necessary. Or at minimum not accepting the premise that inequalities of such manner justify taking from others what is rightfully theirs.
So yeah, there is an element of unfairness HBD narrative (which is a narrative that uses HBD and not something inherent to it) that I am not against being critical off, but HBD is also related to narratives that are good and useful and even most importantly undermine some very harmful anti-HBD narratives I explained in the beginning, and are in fact dominant and doing a lot of damage right now.
Interestingly, on an individual basis the belief of human differences in intelligence is quite common and that does tend to come along with views more in line to what I promote here. We also see the belief in biological differences in ability to become muscular in discussions related to fitness to lead to something more in line with what I promote. Imagine how stupid discussions about fitness where if people denied biological athletic differences. It is simply efficient and useful knowledge for society.
The arrogance of the people who think suppressing truths is noble and only bad motives could lead to promoting truths is really astounding. It is in fact far more the case that falsehoods and lies are motivated by bad intentions.
Much of that relates to the desire to win politically by buying into the sacredness of one's political faction and evil of opposition, which is a false view. For if your faction was so noble, and your opposition so evil, your political faction wouldn't have to win by suppressing the truth.
How would you go about protecting the patients from themselves? In the examples you mentioned, doctors have a duty to explain things and even repeat doing so when necessary, but you can't force them to act the way you want.
With side effects the issue is that from the most typical medicine anyone takes, to ones with more serious side effects, you will find a long list of potentially dangerous side effects. So long that is ignored. People are trained by such experience to dismiss the issue.
I agree with another poster that the key medical advice should be written down. People forget things and if they have it written down a greater share will follow it. Good communication requires adequate emphasis and summarization. People are fallible and then a decent share of people would be lower IQ. Of course, the doctor's should do their job and at the end of the day the patient has their own responsibility to live their life and to follow their doctor's advice. You can't do it for them.
The doctor's duty is to try to be effective communicators that adequately explain the issue in a manner that most people would understand and able to follow, if the patient's desire to do so. It isn't a checklist that just mentioning an issue means that they have done a good job.
This essentially means some paternalism, since it requires extra effort for some patients. But only to a point. Basically any field will have a million of "reasonable person" subjective tests that good professionals must try to follow.
The elite networks and organizations of today discriminate in favor of minorities and the philosophy associated with civil rights act and how it has applied in practice does not take sufficiently seriously any even handed aspects to the law as written.
At such, not only repealing civil rights act but empathising that it is racism and illegal to screw over the non progressive associated identity groups would be necessary.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to entertain the framework of historically oppressed protected groups, as a valid framework. In fact, to the extend discrimination is illegal, or comes with fines, such framework would end up costing for those who apply it.
The arguement that civil rights act might no longer be necessary as the minimum arguement might had made more sense in the past, but if the arguement of civil rights act has been about pervasive influence or conspiracy of groups like KKK, today we can observe a different pervasive ideology. Saying that there isn't racism today would be inaccurate and adopt the framework of progressive idea of racism where they don't count the racism in favor of minorities and against say whites.
You are basically fighting the old war. I also don't see why we need to face these questions in such an indirect way, instead of directly observing whether current American society is favoring, trying to be neutral towards, or mistreating X or Y group. So we will directly reach the truth of the matter you want to investigate, by investigating it directly. I sincerely do not buy into this idea that such things are such as inherently complex mystery that is hard to ascertain. It is convenient politically to be a mystery for one side that their side has a weak case based on the evidence. Actually, who a society favor is going to be reflected in the rhetoric of elites, the dominant NGO groups, the laws and how they are enforced, and so on, and so forth. If you do know that groups that can be favored can even perform worse due to HBD for example, although there are differences in behavior that aren't just HBD and other factors that can also lead to groups that are favored to do worse on some metrics of success, there isn't really a mystery here about what is happening.
Some issues are not actual debates where both sides have a valid case, just because there are two sides that are unwilling to compromise. Although, there is some compromise, well sort of. When you see the celebration paralax that is telling enough. The opposite side to what I argue will sometimes admit that it is true but "what you are going to do about it" i.e. might makes right, or use an arguement like its karma, revenge, and celebrate it basically.
Some of the rhetoric of progressives about protecting groups from discrimination does have a validity today. But it is about protecting from progressive racist "antiracist" movement, including "conservative" politicians that have aligned with it and such ethnic lobbies.
However, obviously, if you are to use power to oppose a cartel that screws X to benefit Z, you ought to be very careful about overcorrection if the goal is to oppose discrimination and be willing to reverse things if they have gone too far. And actually take seriously even handed applications of the law if anti discrimination is the goal. Contrary to the assertion that I have seen that even conservatives shouldn't reverse things, lest they become reactionaries, reversal of bad policy is a preresequite of wise governance in general.
Since anti-discrimination laws end up applying in intent of many involved with bringing them in fruition and practice as a manner of screwing over the progressive and their ethnic and other identity groups it comprise as permanent outroups, that negative precedent should be empathized as part of revoking not only civil rights act but Britain's and other country's equality act, hate speech laws, etc, etc, and to pass laws in favor of removing from influence and prosecuting with high prison time people who under the pretense of anti racism violate the civil rights of any group progressives dislike. Especially goverment officials but big business too and also industry wide regulations, or cartels. People behind trying to make this into reality or making this into reality should not just be excluded from influence but find themselves in legal trouble.
We need to be explicit about the betrayal of anti discrimination promise into discrimination towards natives, Christians, europeans, right wingers and associated groups, men, etc, etc. However a motte and bailey between antidscrimination and for discrimination for protected groups, against oppressors, have been a key part of these civil rights movements and their protagonists. So, we should be clear about the nature of it, and denounce it like Stalin has been denounced. We need to aknowledge the problems with such unwise and unjust policy and movement which was an overcorection and has become a very unjust monstrosity at this point.
The situation we are at is that good and moral policy is to enforce this at this stage. Considering how they have succeded in infiltrating the goverment and large corporations and be influential even with FBI with ADL as the worse, based on the ideology of the people who captured institutions. NGO's whose political influence is to do this discrimination activity which would be correctly considered a crime should become illegal, or at minimum fined and excluded to the level that KKK was. But power should be used to minimize the influence of the worst influential NGOs of this type and those who collaborate with them in power.
Like with civil rights act, fines can also be used for organizations for whose reason of existence can be more neutral like a social media, or media platform, where they are incentivized to remove the kind of leadership that is slanted in such direction. A correction against the excesses of our progressive dominated age is the correct way to analyze the current situation. It isn't 1960s where we have to predict how things will turn up. We can see how they did.
The American goverment with A.I. safety and its pressure in silicon valley and its agents is already there dictating. Same applies with very powerful totalitarian far left NGOs with influence in mega corporations.
I also don't care for the private/public distinction when it comes to collective agendas of mega corporations like Google/Twitter/etc/etc. Especially since the Democrats especially with some Republican cooperation and outside the USA, the European Union and national bureaucrats are very willing to dictate and influence.
I would buy more into this argument if any of these corporations did not give woke default and you could outside of Gab get right wing alternatives. And if they didn't ban from their stores dissent. The censorship of the millions of users of A.I. that they will be subject to by using a platform that censors non culturally far left content because of the dictates of a) goverment agents of such ideology influencing things b) non goverment people running such organisations is a greater violation of freedom, and besides what is the default matters in its own right.
I am in favor of the default being saner also for reasons that don't have to do with opposition of censorship but the use of art not distorting reality in a culturally genocidal manner. Cultural erasure of this type is an evil in itself also, in addition to the censorship being another evil.
Plus Artificial Intelligence is far from being just a product. It being super far left is a problem because it is going to be used in all sorts of decision making for both private and public institutions. It will be used to discriminate, including in medical decicions. I care also for the end of the art not erasing white people. This also happened with this ideology and vaccines in the pandemic. If the default ideology promoted by A.I. is ridiculously unjust in regards to the justice system, that will result in having a very lopsided jusitce. And if the A.I. becomes more independent, or we get robots, there are is a deadly threat there. Woke drones or Woke AGI are actual possibilities.
It does matter as a value to have a society that doesn't screw over the groups progressive authoritarian hate NGOs that have influence with mega corporations and the goverment alike such as ADL have the targets upon.
And of course what the Nybbler have said.
We live in a world of oversensitivity and overreaction in a progressive direction with a lot of strong reactions towards attempts to correct the overcorection. Not in a world where freedom is maximized as a value, even from the right which tends to respect to a degree or another cultural leftist sensitivities.
Since you have supported the ADL, you do want a group that is a decider of wrongthing. One which is rather authoritarian and biased, even defining at some point that it isn't racism when it is against whites.
Perfection is impossible, and so is not having any deciders, but it is easy to imagine deciders who are less biased than that and I am 100% in favor of things moving in such direction.
One side being impotent while the other side is willing to use power in both private sphere and in public sphere (it is in fact hard to see where the one ends and the other begins between NGOs which have chapter in mega corporations, goverment agents and such mega corporations and even intelligence agencies) is the case of the side choosing impotence being gullible and enabling abuse and the worst decision makers to run riot. It is a vice and not a virtue.
There is no reason to be gullible towards requests to selectively follow certain rules at your own expense that the ones requesting don't apply for themselves.
Conservative attempts to very indirectly deal with problems is not going to work. To actually deal with extremely racist antiwhite and progressive stack A.I. and this kind of ideology they should put huge fines, deprive of goverment funds, or directly restrict, or all of them to different degrees.
This is clearly not true as ethnic groups, and political groups that see themselves as victims have been rather successful.
Moreover, much of the overton window, including in the right is full of people who are angry when the victimhood status of certain groups related with the left is challenged. Even more so when it comes to history.
The successful PMC women in OP's example are not dooming themselves as women. They are benefiting from pro-discrimination policy.
Of course, seeing your group as victims is not in it self a recipe of success. But being entitled to better treatment and trying to convince others you deserve it because you are victimized, is going to be an aid in getting better treatment. While trying to avoid framing yourself as a victim at all costs can end up with you becoming an acceptable target with no organisation to oppose when others vilify you.
Now, I personally oppose people claiming victimhood too much when they don't deserve it, or as a trick to screw over others but that isn't because it is ineffective but because it would be unfair at the expense of others. So I oppose identity politics in those cases. And I support allowing space for the possibility of victimhood as an aspect of justice, and people presenting legitimate cases of them being victimized. There are also some tragedy of the commons problems that are also a good reason to oppose it, leading to a more dysfunctional society from such parasitical behavior. I guess another point would be that excessively disrespecting other groups can lead to backlash against yours. Hence we see a strategy to not allow the outgroup identity politics, so they don't stand up and dissuade this extremism.
So in theory and in practice, embracing victimhood where warranted is a necessary component of justice. Being pro your group for your legitimate rights and against mistreatment is being pro justice.
I also understand that the space that claims to be anti-identity politics has a problem with bad actors who concern troll to oppose identity politics when it comes to white, or male or christian identity politics and support a default of jewish, or woman, black, or other progressive identity politics. In fact part of their problem and what they identify as extreme with the identity politics they complain, is the criticism against excessive jewish (especially for Jewish identity politics there are those making exceptions), or female, or black identity politics, or LGBT, general progressive stack groups.
And are rather extremist, machiavelian chauvinists for it. Some of them also are fanatical about some progressive identity politics and only willing to oppose progressive identity politics after a point, while being intolerant of any identity politics or victimhood status for right wing groups. Or are adopting this perspective because they have noticed that this faction has grabbed influence and are trying to pander to it.
Others are not considering seriously the implications of opposing groups embracing victimhood and how much measures it would justify against the institutions and replacing those who run Google/silicon valley mega corps, ethnic activist NGOs, Hollywood, netlifx, have captured political power in all sorts of institutions, including in political parties. To be promoting something like this in a consistent manner and not just to demoralize the right wing outgroup will require a significant effort to dismantle things as they are now. Just dissuading right wingers doesn't' cut it. Indeed it would require going further than my stance of opposing people using illegitimate/excessive grievances, which aren't proportionate to the situation.
In reality, license to act without a counterparty leads to abuse and excess. On net more identity politics exist where only some sides play the game. If other groups embraces victimhood at your expense where you have the role of the oppressor and starts mistreating yours, and you are unable to see yourself as victims, the end result would be a greater tyranny than if you did see the reality, of your group being victimized. Before that the possibility of groups being victims or victimizers should be embraced for sure as well.
One kind of identity politics, of which victimhood is a part of can restrain another since another group is going to have demands and oppose its own mistreatment and demand that other groups are more moderate. Just like people are less prone to go around murdering people if there is a police which will also act violently and arrest them, or people have a right to self defense and to use violence to stop people from killing them. Mutual respect and mutual fear lead to less violence that one party having no spine and an unwilligness to recognise its own rights. But I am more in favor of people having a valid concept of group rights even outside of just their own group.
Still, my choice would be for the dominant ideology to be skeptical of certain behaviors and tolerant of others, and actually trying to ascertain whether a group is promoting illegitimate grievances, trying to permanently screw over other groups of their legitimate rights and destroy them and their inheritance, or they are trying to retain/gain what they deserve. It is too reductive to either embrace that groups should be embracing victimhood and blaming others, or denying victimhood and blaming others.
Another way to see it is that if the dominant narrative and leadership in institution accepts this idea that one group's rights ends where other's begin and does so even if they are running and country represent as they ought primarily their nation's interests but while respecting the red lines of others, this itself results in less identity politic conflict.
Which is part of what some of the people complaining about identity politics, and groups embracing victimhood have a problem with. Having different factions accept a mutual compromise, and knowing if they push further that won't be tolerated and they will be laughed out of the room, can lead to peace and end culture war debates. And of course, the goal of justice includes in it after justice being done to stop milking those grievances.
I.E. You correctly complain about your group being portrayed in an one sided manner negatively in history and at present and discriminated against and being replaced and not having a right to exist. All these stop, as they should. You don't push to do the same things to other groups, and you don't pretend that they persist. You don't demand that your group is portrayed only positively and trying to portray other groups overwhelmingly negatively. You don't demand that your group must be given money to become as successful, if not more so. You compromise, and having succeeded you don't push further. So in some sense, certain types of identity politics/victimhood embracing must be out of bounds.
You support the west becoming more authoritarian to combat Russia/China in the neocon/cultural left direction and Tucker opposes that and been critical of western authoritarianism and western cultural far left extremism.
This idea that you represent the less authoritarian option here over Tucker is making black into white.
The reality is that those who are dealing with authoritarians who use permanent war and demonization of other countries abroad to justify their anti conservative, anti-its own people authoritarian empire, are going to show some sympathy to eastasia. They are not going to buy into the narrative of demonizing the foreign empire to justify the repressive rule of their own rulers.
There isn't any moral legitimacy but more in line with the most sinister similiar historical ambitions, of American imperialists desiring to subjucate the whole world.
I would suggest to make America good again in home, worth supporting for conservatives and moderates which would have to mean that neocons are kept out and down and also that isn't to justify an American imperialist agenda. It is legitimate to oppose America as the warmonger/bad actor, contributing to conflict in places like Ukraine or middle east. America as in the people and the empire are not the same, and Americans benefit from some pax americana but not with beligerent american imperialism which comes with imperial overreach, and is directed by people who don't have any loyalty to the American people.
In regards to conservatism, a moderate age that produces good outcomes requires a healthy level of conservatism, and its absence, is precisely an aspect of the many bad outcomes and social disintegration that western world suffers from. What this means is a society of healthy nuclear families as an ideal, promoting the history of its people, and celebrating and continuing the heritage, being patriotic but ideally not disrespectfully imperialist against other people. Now, a mixture between conservative norms and some norms that could be associated with liberalism but the liberal tribe is about a more hardcore ideology than that, is more in line with what Tucker has in mind and personally my preference. Ironically, excessive social liberalism and fanaticism against moderates as you also illustrate goes against having freedom, since it results in bans of platforms that allow valuable speech.
I agree with a poster bellow that part of the reason they are trying to ban ticktock is because it has content that is critical of Israel.
The totalitarian, ironically extremely racist, "anti racist", "our democracies" type of vision is promoting something destructive and incredibly ugly.
The rise of new power block is incredibly dangerous time for the world as the old one often tries to stop this through conflict. Last thing the world needs is going closer to world war situation because certain extremist imperialists can't deal with the fact that countries like Russia and China are going to be influential too, and in fact plenty of countries are very willing to cooperate with them and even trade without using the dollar. Rather than beligerence, coexistence and trading with both China and USA and being more favorable towards USA because dealing with them would be more pleasurable and prefferable in that manner than dealing with the Chinese, should be what USA offers.
More options
Context Copy link