BANNED USER: personal attacks
>Unban in 2d 14h 17m
Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Banned by: @Amadan
Trump banned diversity training in the goverment in his first administration. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/
In contrast Biden administration was super woke. Trump and people like Rufo will work together anyhow. I wouldn't have too high expectations, but there is going to be considerable difference even from a mostly ineffective Trump who pushes right a bit, versus a Biden administration pushing quite far left.
There are those who want a neutered right, and frame the alternative with negative exaggerations and fearmongering. The reality is like Democrat administrations purged a lot of people in the goverment to put their own loyalists in charge, it isn't only fair for the right to do this to govern in a different manner than that, but also the only way to change things.
Wanting a neutered right, is not the agenda of genuine moderates but people who are on the same side as Biden.
How we got here was through Republicans like Romney called moderate but who supported BLM. And through liberals, framed as more moderate than they are, but who actually are quite far left culturally and implemented those changes. Only a political coalition that genuinely opposes the intersectional agenda can genuinely push it back.
The right is the only coalition push back these things. Can the center do this? Well, some of the people called far right, or considered part of the right if one tries to objectively judge how much they pander to different identity groups, ironically people like Trump are closer to the center than many other people (falsely) labeled moderate like Mitt Romney.
Those usually carrying the moderate or liberal labels, are insufficiently against the whole woke agenda, and too much for it. So they won't push back and can't put it away. What some of them seem to be doing is to sometimes try to pretend they are already doing this. So there isn't going to be a genuine attempt by liberals and people like Romeny to put the woke away, but there might be attempts to define wokeness narrowly, and still support the same agenda. The limited hangout maneuver.
In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.
Yes, but that will solidify idpol and it will still be fashionable but not dominating the national conversation, until the focus passes and a new Floyd hysteria emerges. That something isn't as discussed as much as previously, does not stop it from being a problem. Moreover, it can coexist just as it continues to coexist with covid focus or the Israel conflict with Palestinians. Moreover, foreign policy presidencies tend to be presidencies engaging in idiotic destabilizing expensive wars that make the MIC richer, but are actually damaging towards their country and the world. Which isn't to say extreme isolationism is the solution.
Identity politics are always here to stay, the question is if we got a sane and fair arrangement, or one that gives valid reason for people to oppose and incentivizes political conflict. Which doesn't change unless the ideology of modern new left liberals and even those in the establishment conservative parties who aren't actually conservative who agree with them stops being influential. Because it is an agenda that does try to screw over, and increasingly at that, the progressive intersectional coalition outgroups, such as white Christian men. The way to have peace, and to relax culture war intensity is to enforce something better and more even handed. Which as is the case always with even handed policies, sharing elements with other groups, shares in a vein diagram ground with the genuine far right. Additionally, it is itself definitely seen by those with the new left liberal agenda as far right, and labeled at such. Although, that isn't actually accurate, and has to do with the strategy of the far left to label everyone other than them with pejoratives.
What is important to understand is that we are never going to get a fair arrangement that reduces culture war intensity, under the hysteric paranoia of the far right, that leads people to oppose reasonable positions because they associate them with the far right. In fact there are issues where even the most hardcore people on the far right have legitimate grievances about their favorite groups being mistreated. And it is in fact possible and preferable to the current situation to share grounds with anyone on issues they have a point, and refuse to share ground with them where they are wrong.
From liberal-ish space, what would aid to relax tensions, is an attitude of compromise and understanding that there has been a real problem of cultural/identitarian progressive overreach. That overreach and progressive extremism also relates to the neutering of the right.
No, its not liberalism, since liberalism includes more than that, especially modern mainstream liberalism.
New left Liberalism is supporting supression of those most stongly opposing such agendas while promoting itself mass migration of foreign groups, hate speech laws, discrimination and propaganda against the replaced non progressiv demographics (creating future electoral politics also more in line with agendas like black communism nationalism) while concern trolling people who oppose this. Of course new left liberals have supported the trajectory South Africa has followed and promoted similiar policies to their own countries. Including hate speech laws and propaganda that demonizes white people and elevates progressive favored grousp as superior. The new left does have a radical progressive supremacist and authoritarian agenda which is implementing in practice. The ADL that you support and your politics are radical in fact. This idea promtoed by various people that try to seperate this new left agenda from liberalism, is simply not respectful of both present situation and of history. There is not in fact a clear border seperating liberals from the far left.
That is a core aspect of what modern liberalism is in practice. Even if we have supporters of it who try to present it as something else.
As for suppressing black communist nationalists leading to tyranny. Of course it is a core aspect of a free democratic society, and even a free non democratic society to have a constitution and not let just any pollicy run as it goes against the rights. New left, tribalist favoritism in favor of blacks and demonization against. The idea that democratic societies should suprress north korean like extremists is a sound one and we live in a world where far leftists suprress those more even handed than them under the pretense they are suppressing far righters.
The only way we avoid inevitable hardcore bad consequences is to suppress far left extremists. It does not lead to tyranny to do so, it helps us avoid their tyranny to keep them down. And in fact, supressing far left extremists whose agenda is to oppress for example both political opposition and often the case whites, with their policies, propaganda and false history, and authoritarianism, is a core element of getting the promise of democracy. Plus avoiding the enormous problems of decline and corruption from their far left politics that have helped bring south africa enormous decline. So the promise of democracy is a society that protects the common good and respects the human rights of its people, not just whatever elites who pretend represent public opinion says, applies, nor mob rule. The promise of democracy has failed because instead of doing this, we have far left extremists persecuting others.
And in countries like South Africa it was going to be indeed a much more difficult proposition due to demographics. This doesn't change the fact that the best option at play was not to give the power to black commnist nationalists. And the difficulties also relating not just to demographics but global left and liberals pushing things in that direction when they could have been adamant to push for some reforms but not to give power to black communist nationalists. Not to accept the radical premise that inequalities are just due to racism.
The tribe new left liberals and what they believe is bad and should be suppressed but the general philosophy of liberalism, or what is associated with that before or excluding the new left, is not perfect but has important flaws. But there are certain elements/virtues that are valuable. A bit like with the enlightenment, we had reign of terror and far left extremists, with the French revolution, but there were some valuable elements in the enlightenment. Ultimately liberalism philosophically becomes inevitably this radical far left, hypocritical authoritarian dictatorship of progressivism monstrosity, if not combined with a healthy dose of conservatism and also, since a core part of the problem is also extreme favoritism and tribalism for progressive associated tribes and hatred and contempt for the rights while virtue signaling how they are antiracists, also to aknowledge the group rights of non progressive groups, so a certain nationalism in combination with certain internationalism that respects nations, both their own and of foreign ones is also a component of the only thing that has worked well as international justice which is ethnopluralism where different nations have reciprocoal rights. So, things like checks and balances are valuable, but so are laws against treason and not letting far left extremists taking over. I actually do think that this is a compromise on liberalism because it does exist as a purity spiraling ideology that transforms into something more far left. There is an inherent element of whigish progressive doubling down in historical liberalism, that can lead to it becoming far left as it has done. Just like non new left western societies were a compromise between liberal, conservative, nationalist and even in some cases internationalist elements, within them the radical part that saw them following the liberal and progressive doubling down trajectory, also existed.
And today modern liberal organizations instead of applying international justice consistently, we have organisations like Amnesty international pretend that Europeans are not indingeneous in their own homelands.
So yeah, modern mainstream liberalism is completely rotted with cultural marxist, authoritarian agendas and extremely machiavelian. It is a part of the far left. With liberalism as a philosophy contra to liberals as a political tribe and their political philosophy of modern liberalism where things are much more negative because the later are have been supporting something more extreme, what I am suggesting is throwing out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Successful modern western societies were a mixture of liberal, conservative, nationalist and internationalist elements and which are something more sophisticated, wiser and greater fulfills the high minded promises of concepts like democracy, or positive associations of liberalism. They failed to keep down far left extremists whose agenda is as I described however, and the world is now experiencing the consequences and is on a radicla path of transformation to south africa like agenda.
Of course another element of far left extremism part of liberalism is extreme tolerance for far left extremists and even ethnic authoritarian supremacists, of a more left wing hue, which destroys their society, in combination, in new left liberalism with a hypocritical sharing and being the authoritarian supremacist movement that through law and practice implements a cancel culture to any dissent and enforces the demonization, discrimination, double standards in the justice system too of course and even deliberately follows policies that will lead to the extinction and replacement of their ethnic outgroup. While also tolerating radicals who want something worse and transforming society in a direction where it made possible that eventually they may get their way. Not to mention the race targeted violence and criminality that ensues in a society that has this kind of policies and rhetoric.
The fact that modern new left liberalism denies this nature and tries to present itself as an anti-authoritarian movement, doesn't change the fact that is an authoritarian movement in fact. Indeed, it is a part of its negative element that makes it deserving of a more negative reputation.
This ideology is the problem. I certainly am not suggesting we purity spiral dismantle anything that might seem to fit into liberalism, when I argue that communist nationalists should not have the political power to run South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabue to the ground. Wiith murderous consequences especially for the later. In your case the extremely authoritarian and highly influential ADL, brings such objections, but you have sided with them.
And I can't but wonder if you bring such objections because you do think such far left extremists should successfully do what they want and persecute dissent, and not because you genuinely oppose tyranny, but the opposite where you sympathize with black communist nationalist agenda. Because, actually it is the fact that new left liberalism implements similar agendas and sympathizes with them, and allows state within a state NGOs to run riot and both in private sphere, and within goverment, persecute people. Its not a fringe movement but mainstream in modern liberalism and even supposed rightist parties like Torries which aren't right wing, which have adopted modern liberalism have done. And there are few organizations more emblematic of this kind of politics than the ADL.
So no, we should give an accurate reputation of what new left liberalism is doing, instead of this fraud of a consistent movement for tolerance, that is even handed, following international justice and consistent rules. It is a cultural marxist movement that shares plenty with black communist nationalists they supported taking over in South Africa and is increasingly trying to bring more south africa politics in western countries. However, excessive tolerance to such far left extremism in western societies has also been an unwise course that has let to the tyranny of the far left. The reality is that machiavelian hiding their power level far leftists, under the banner of liberalism have been pushing in such direction, but there have also been people who have been more unwisely gullible, who were manipulated by the machiavelian far leftists who concern trolled tolerance and didn't understand how tolerating far left extremists to march on institutions and take over is ruinous and unwise, and not a virtue. That they weren't tolerating an ideology of tolerance and restraint, but a radical ideology.
It goes against a free society to not be in the sweet spot of tolerance, to not have rules against treason and criminals, and not consider treason and criminality when certain agendas that do qualify are implement and factions do take over. The right to accurately label treason as such, is one eroded by far left extremism when it comes to labeling their agenda at such, but this isn't because the end result it seeks is a tolerant society, but the opposite. The only free and just societies that have ever existed are those who make wise trade offs and yes do show a restraint, but still keep criminals down. Obviously, if you don't keep totalitarian political comisars down, if like the Russians 100 years ago, you are passive in the face of radicals trying to take over your country and slow to react, the end result is one that is worse than if you did act.
Another aspect of this, was not tolerance, or be guilible but passivity and lacking will for confrontation, even though this was an important issue that a stand ought to had been made, and also should be made today. Especially for countries which aren't yet South Africa. Letting things go further in a South Africa direction, is going to be another mistake.
In any case, we don't live in an age of consistent extreme tolerance, and we have no reason to let far left extremists ruin things, due to a principle of tolerance that nobody follows consistently and certainly is not seen as incompatible with democracy. Modern liberalism is a movement for tolerating its far left extremists which include actual self identifying liberals and people they sympathize with, with pretense of universalist tolerance they don't follow because they are being incredibly intolerant of others. Western democracies that operate under this ideology are rather intolerant to what they perceive often inaccurately, as too far to the right. Which is categorized broadly in a manner that brings us far left tyranny. This is the time where the pressing need is for taking seriously the enormous problem of far left extremists who are actually a fatal danger to a free, non tyrannical society. And then not letting such ideology destroy countries, both through tyranny and through the other negative consequences of cultural marxist regimes.
In both cases, doing some reforms but not going in the direction of black communist nationalists would definetly be much better than handing power to black communist nationalists like Mugabe and the ANC. Indeed, if you want to avoid racism, you not only don't handle power to them, you suppress them by force and not allow them to have organizations. What we got now, is liberal parties worldwide trying to copy the ANC agenda. Global liberalism supporting ANC coming to power is also condemnable. Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.
Even if you have a multiethnic country that isn't going to seperate, you should supress by force this kind of ideology and politics on the basis of protecting a group, in this case whites, either as minority, or as a larger demographic. Democracy as it is understood does not necessarily imply allowing all sorts of policies and the tyranny of progressive supremacists. But in any case, it is the better choose to suppress the choice of voters for black communist nationalists, and even of elites who bypass agenda of voters and are even more supportive of such ideology as has been the case in some european countries. Or even of very influential NGOs of this ideology which become a state within a state.
A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned, would be both a better governed one, and one that seeks the common good and respects the rights of its people, over following an agenda to screw whites, for blacks and promote communist nationalism which is also horrible policy in general. Doubly so when it is black communist nationalism against whites, that pretends their contributions to the economy is due to legacy of apartheid and racism. In both a democratic, and non democratic system you should suppress this ideology and its organizations.
Of course, if a significant part of a different ethnic group population has an agenda that is about screwing over the other ethnic group and pretend they are antiracist when doing so, then I don't see why separation is necessarily the wrong choice. Less problem of inequality between blacks and whites in the same country, if they are in a different country.
It raises the question of what the purpose of government is (ie is it about creating a good life or is it about self determination). If the latter, then what is the SA argument against allowing the Boers to form their own separate country. There isn’t even the anti colonialism argument.
Absolutely valid point, for which the answer is that the movement that is against Boers having self determination is a hypocritcal antiwhite black nationalist and other intersectional alliances movement. It isn't a consistent movement that consistently follows principles for, or against self determination, or for, or against racism. It is who/whom that animates this movement. Even though there are definitely supporters of it who don't see themselves that way.
I don't agree with Spencer's viewpoint, although I don't agree with the destroy nations, or european nations ideology. I am more team ethnopluralism than team one ethnic group dominating the others.
Tate, makes some true and astute observations that trigger people, and also says dumb stuff, and promotes also exaggerations in the semi ironic, just joking, but am I really, way. For the dumb and later parts of Tate's rhetoric, being annoyed is understandable. He also has this sketchy history and it is understandable to gain dislikes from that.
You can disagree with them, and even dislike them, but obviously that doesn't make them stupid.
Also, stupid philosophy, =/ underperforming idiot, fortunately or unfortunately.
Both the way they talk, their notoriety, and accomplishments, don't show them to be the underperformers you label them as because you dislike their views. Spencer was an editor IIRC before his notoriety too.
And why is their success with social media, not something that demonstrates some ability? For Tate especially. Being charismatic is a helpful trait for success, and just like it and other behaviors helped him with social media, it might have helped elsewhere. Or he could take advantage of the same idea of trying to cultivate a following, in other instances.
Both seem to be intelligent people with some sociopathic traits.
Spencer will probably be more successful without social media and his politics.
Tate would be less successful, but he was successful before social media, albeit he used cam whores, or allegedly might have engaged in illegal activity as a pimp.
They would likely be successful, for a time, in various systems too, but also might get in trouble by overstepping legal and moral boundaries.
One the problems with you insisting with this unnecessary story that bitterly blames men is that you treat different generations as the same men. Another, is that there were other things bad towards men that men went along with due to feminist ideology, or browbeating. Certainly, complaints didn't start in the 2020s!
Again, to treat the entire discourse as blaming women alone, is inaccurate. Especially when feminist paradigm is definitely anti male, and at such, even those with an even handed response are going to be critical of that. You seem to be promoting a sex negative type of feminist narrative here.
But in all the "birth rate dropping, women should be having more babies" discussion I see, nobody is talking about the other side of the equation
But I did just talk about the other side of the equation too and even agreed with you on that. Why don't you just accept this and drop the idea that nobody is willing to talk about both men and women behaving in accordance to obligations that apply to both?
It isn't accurate that nobody is willing to do that, since that has has been part of this discussion. It is also true that I offered some things that apply more towards women, such as that their benefit from affirmative action depresses relationships
It doesn't seem like your insistence on promoting this narrative, changes even when people promote such things first, or agree with such points.
Men also have expectations, standards, and conditioning from wider society around marriage and family (which culturally has shifted from "early marriage, be main breadwinner, have two to four kids" to "develop your career, enjoy yourself while still young, mature adulthood is put off until thirties, kids are an expensive drag which prevent you from spending your money on having fun and buying stuff").
I agree again, and I also promoted the change of societal expectations and education and career first, for both men and women. It isn't true that the entire discussion is for men to have their cake and eat it too.
And of course, it is especially unreasonable to be blaming men in general for being the obstacle because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Blaming progressivism, including European progressives and fellow travelers and influence of certain non Europeans and their activist movements (such as black activist movements and Jewish activist movements and the first included plenty of the later) for "cucking" Europeans is correct but it was influenced by versions of Christianity. Even though atheistic ideology has been even more influential. I do think Judaism, as in religious Judaism gets too little blame, not only for the direct influence of Jews, but also in the way Christianity is said to resemble such far left movements, well that applies even more for Judaism. Of course it applies especially to the Jews with their religion and their understanding that says they never didn't do nothing wrong, were oppressed by the evil other, but they will have their revenge and rule as they deserve. Add into that some unviersalism about how they are in the mission to heal the world and acting for universal justice.
The influence of this kind of perspective in progressive identity grievance movements in general, both of ethnic groups, and of groups like women, LGBT, etc, is of course notable. There is of course progressive Judaism, and the sizable influence of actual Jews, but the actual Jewish grievance perspective is influential even where no Jews can be found, but people who have absorbed this ideology. Exactly in the way people claim non Christians ideologically share elements with Christianity. Indeed, progressive Christianity in the 20th century has obviously been influenced by progressive Judaism.
And just like there has been a far left Jewish tradition, we even had a direct history of Christian radicals going even before 20th century, even if they weren't the dominant strain in Christianity. Their influence in the USA did play its role. There is a difference of course with the Jewish perspective which isn't pathologically altruist, and the European Christian progressive perspective which is against its own demographic, but I do think Black Christianity is much closer to the Jewish perspective where it is a grievance movement that admits no wrong for its own, and seeks more for its group under the framing of universal justice. Although progressive Judaism which is very influential and Black Christianity might be willing to make some intersectional compromises for similar groups, but not for the common outgroup.
So, yes the secular left, including secular leftists who are pro markets have been very influential, but there have been religious influences there. What is called secular, often carries plenty of religious dna. There is also a significant anti-Christian and anticlerical tradition.
Since official Christianity through modernity includes the progressive version though, you can't really pretend that version of Christianity isn't pro subservient/self hating Europeans. It isn't all modern Christianity, but it does exist. Of course, if one examines atheists, they tend to share more the progressive and pathologically altruist vision, so I wouldn't focus on all Christians as the demographic to blame. Especially since anti-Christianity has been an aspect of progressive movements as well. Simultaneously, part of the progressive agenda, has been to corrupt Christianity and have progressivism wear it as a skinsuit.
My view is that progressive Christianity does not derive as the natural telos of Christianity, however Christianity is more universalist than certain other religions, but the end can be something more moderate, like historical Christianity was.
Since, I don't think being maximally self-centered as a group is good, nor pathologically altruist is good, usually civilizations more in the sweet spot were more Christian than today. But it does matter what kind of Christianity you got. If your goal is to follow the goal I mentioned, pathologically altruist Christianity is worse for a civilization than a more secular approach that isn't pathologically altruist. So, I don't think the terminal goal should be "Christianity only", but there ought to be tolerance between those Christians and not Christians who aren't for the agenda to destroy european civilization and its people.
It isn't as if the current social arrangement is only held up by men in general wanting to have their cake and eat it. You really are fixated on men at primary to blame movers and shakers and as if such things are just an adversarial negotiation between men and women. Actually some of male influence has also to do with male feminists, so it isn't' as if men prioritize in a self serving manner just male interest and there is the influence of women too and what they want. But I agree that things changing where we have a prioritization of marriage over constant dating life, is going to involve both men and women doing that.
Most of your post still focuses on the narrative of blaming men continually though as getting a taste of their own medicine, with one sided narratives which is the classic far left/feminist narrative with the twist that you don't see agency for the women with sexual revolution.
Your message includes excessive browbeating against men, which is the last thing we want.
You genuinely are repeatedly trying to have this discussion with me, of how blaming men is legitimate because of past sins, when my point that I have been discussing was that such an approach is not legitimate way to approach issues to begin with.
While I am not interested in forcing women to have babies and favor sensible changes that create a situation where more people are in monogamous relationships and have more children, I am in favor of society marginalizing factions promoting these narratives of one sided oppression and permanent revenge and getting even, which are not society's best interests but also sadistic glee against men is bad on its own right. Being against one's fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands, who are permanently blamed as being permanently responsible as men based on slanted one sided narratives, is not what we need.
The issues with that are numerous. An additional one is this: I don't accept the one sided story, and one where women don't have agency, but even if someone was to grant it, which I don't, then how are current men to blame for what other men did previously? So, it is another example of how such movement and narrative is destructive and just irrationally spiteful.
Ironically, what you argue fits perfectly the point of the blog post I previously linked: https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
Bellow you argue the following:
A lot of it is economic - unless you have one partner with a lot of money, it's not really feasible to be a stay at home wife and mother. If both of you have to work, then there's little chance to have kids because it all needs to be planned around education and careers, and then when you do, you're paying for childcare which is pretty much eating up one of your wages. You won't get a mortgage without two incomes, and renting is another problem (can you even find a place to rent, and if you do how high is the rent, and will the lease allow children?)
Economic expenses of parenthood aren't fully explanatory because even in societies with decent wages and high welfare to parents have some these issues. Plus the issue isn't' just births but relationships and decline there too. The economic issue is probably a factor in relation with expectations and other issues I promoted related to education first as a model and so on. Various of these issues also relate with social norms that both men and women follow, not everything is more related to female behavior and incentives specifically.
Ultimately from the article I linked I want to highlight this which goes further than just blaming women:
The only way America will ever push people to marry is if social norms change. In modern America, marriage and family are more about individual fulfillment than serving a higher purpose. You do this because you want to, not because it’s your duty to do so. As long as hyperindividualism reigns supreme, we will continue to have women complain about dating online.
The Right should encourage young men to improve themselves, but conservatives engage in browbeating.
You have been consistently mischaracterizing the idea that men are getting a raw deal in the current arrangement as blaming women exclusively, and are reacting to opposition to things like the bellow
Attractive women in their prime (early-to-mid 20s) also have a similar level of abundance and don’t want to settle down either. Family would get in the way of their lifestyle. Their mind changes as soon as they hit 30, yet they’re now less capable of getting the man they think they deserve. The 30-something chads will eventually want to settle down, but they want a girl in her early-to-mid 20s (this reality motivates women’s rage over age gap relationships). But they’re less likely to obtain that dream girl, so they string along 30-something women who they will never propose to.
This narrative does blame some men too, you know.
Although the issue isn't to prioritize blaming women, but to change things. If things are bad, and part of this relates to this idea of women not settling early enough and chasing the top, which is worse for men than for women for various reasons explained, including women dating up and benefiting from affirmative action, this is an entirety fair issue to observe. However, even this explanation does show that women also lose in some ways from this arrangement. They have less children than polled to desire, and the men they chase also often refuse to settle down. Then there are those issues that relate to both male and female behavior.
Maybe there is a room for trying to change current male behavior specifically, in addition to changes of both men and women but I agree with the article I linked that it can't come in the same one sided demand where the arrangement remains hostile to men, but only demands are made for men to step up. It can't be motivated by the same anti male feminist perspective where as you see it, men are tasting their own medicine.
At the end of the day people who care about improving things and have specific goals like a society with more healthy monogamous relationships and at least replacement fertility rate, should change things. Those who want instead to focus on retaining a sex negative feminist consensus are probably going to be an obstacle to that. Also, a level of sympathy for groups "getting a taste of their own medicine" is going to be helpful to promote the correct policies.
Pretty clear that you want to prioritize blaming men. These narratives that focuses on coming up with a story that is one sided blame game in the past to excuse a bad arrangement today have been getting very tiresome.
Men are getting a more raw deal in the current arrangement, and it is taboo to not pander to women. This doesn't mean that realizing such facts is being one sided against women. If we are ever going to move from feminist excesses, we should be willing to make such admittance, without overacting.
You are responding uncharitably to a very different post than what I promoted. One would think instead of promoting more arranged dating by friends and communities like it used to exist even in the 90s, problems with dating apps which might require possible regulation, and stopping pro female affirmative action my priority was going full Ceausescu! Such issues are not actually just focusing on blaming women and are ideas that go further than that. Now, I hinted some of these than being explicit, by mentioning them as problems. I definitely don't think our approach should be maximally coercive at expense of women...
Opposing the situation where women date up, overepresented in colleges in part due to Affirmative Action, in dating apps, there is a scenario where there is a prioritisation of minority of men and women trying to arrange dates with them, is far from what you paint. Another aspect I didn't focus as much is deferring family formation, with education being prioritised in the family formation years, in combo with an aspect of this being fear of commitment and even of raising children and birth. Where due to the influence of feminism the concept of it being taboo to say that we need more births, and also a promotion of careerism over motherhood, has also happened. Perhaps under the same feminist influence, is why you think I am talking about forcing women to have children, when I am more interested in societal perceptions, encouragement. Humanity wouldn't have survived so far if there hasn't also been an instict to have children and a desire, which we also see statistically where women want more children than they have. They used to fear birth less. And society should encourage what is good and discourage what is detrimental to it, and there is a huge gray line and debate in how to go about to do that and how far, and I am more interested in the right framework that coming with all exact solutions. I definitely wouldn't like Ceausescu like policies, which haven't been necessary in history to get above replacement rate birth rates and a society where a larger percentage of men and women were in healthy relationships.
Raising average male status and having a higher % of men and women dating, that is more widespread monogamy over a situation where women target for the top percent is not a nightmare scenario, but an improvement of the status quo. And even in that situation, as always was the case, there will exist people, including men who will lose for various reasons, including their own deficiencies.
You can't fix the problem by looking at one side; there are plenty of low-value men quite happy to have a string of kids by different women but not marry any of the mothers, and that's not the kind of "we must increase the birth rate" that people want when they discuss "why aren't people marrying and having kids?" Women may well be much too fussy and choosy now, but the shoe used to be on the other foot with men not wanting to be tied down before they got a chance to sow their wild oats and have their fun.
It isn't actually that widespread of a problem outside of the black community. It is more lack of romance and low number of children among actual couples that is the bigger issue.
I actually consider the viewpoint of:
another piece of evidence of the artificiality of this meme is that it reverses the scariness of those two possibilities. To me, a world where people come to harm because of impersonal arbitrary forces, of an inherent chaos which can be mitigated or ignored according to your risk tolerance, is a comforting world.
inherently scary and threatening. There is plenty of doublethink and celebration paralax going on.
It is a very implausible claim on the face of it.
Things happen for a reason, and in the world there are various groups with different agendas that they coordinate for their goals at expense of others, is simply an unshakeable fact.
J. Edgar Hoover saying the mafia doesn't exist is scary, because the mafia obviously exists and he is covering up for it. There isn't a reading where it is productive to focus upon the comfort of the mafia not existing, just cause Hoover says it doesn't exist. It isn't a realistic scenario. Nor of course can you blame everything that happens on you, on the mafia being behind it, but it is nonsense to come with an understanding of reality that disminishes the mafia.
When people claimed that there was no communist conspiracy, and like people here who do it with the contemporary version of this, promoted weakmen kooky scenarios of communists putting fluoride in water supply, and comedies pushed the meme "Communists are out to get our bodily fluids", and were hating on those who opposed it as right wing extremist lunatics, that was scary. We had communist sympathizers who opposed valid opposition to communists, and painted reasonable vigilance as inherently ridiculous. That is dangerous and a society with no defenses should be afraid of how things are going to degenerate towards.
A reasonable precautionary attitude and suspicion is protective. And I find a society that has a pragmatic, intellectually wise attitude towards precaution and recognizes the things it must focuses upon, to be a more comforting one. Basically, the people who are dismissive are not actually promoting a more comforting vision, but their very action of dismissing valid problems is threatening, and often a result of them sympathizing if not outright belonging in particular factions that are accused of coordinating to screw over people. The meme of a very tiny cabal is unfortunately false, because influential aspiring factions try to recruit others and do have supporters.
There isn't' a scenario where the CIA, or George Soros, or ADL and others like them representing actual factions aren't t doing plenty of nefarious things, or groups like Epstein's don't exist. Or that things like biological weapon programs of CIA, or that it is possible that covid itself might be the result of such research, are inherently ridiculous claims. The scenario we are dealing with is the one where people are covering up for them and worse vilifying those who do oppose and care as lunatics, or as extremists.
To further give my take, and don't misunderstand my tone here as implying you think otherwise, because I am more explaining my understanding than disagreeing with you:
Now, this isn't to say that any kooky claim is legitimate. Criminal conspiracies are real, and nefarious factions that might or might not fit within the definition of criminality, definitely exist without a shadow of a doubt and we know this. This doesn't mean moon landing is fake, or aliens are here. Just as we know this, we also know flat earth is nonsense. There are simply plausible claims, and implausible. Just like people who promote flat earth theory are promoting something which is nonsense, it is also credulous to be dismissive of opposition to genuine factions and pretend it is ridiculous.
In fact it is a strategy, infamously promoted by Cass R. Sunstein to flood the field with kooky conspiracy theories, to disminish suspicions on 9/11 and other issues. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585. So they both promote both implausible takes, but also to try to create weakman scenarios with real factions, like George Soros, or like the communists I mentioned. And then people are going to focus on the more sensationalist, kooky, weakman at best scenarios as a strategy of supporting the actions of genuine factions like the CIA, people like George Soros, groups like AIPAC and ADL, or even factions like cultural far leftists, or cliques of influential billionaires like Bill Ackman, etc. Or try to spin legitimate opposition as ridiculous.
Nobody is in charge is just an excuse to cover for the people with power and their actions. There are always people with influence doing things because they decided to do them. Even inaction is a decision, and someone must be held accountable for the direction things are going. It is also a promotion of lack of standards and servile attitude towards elites, and decision makers in general (which can include a decent share of the public on some issues) and even for mediocrity. Good governance requires accountability and holding people up to a standard.
Whatever the responsibility of men in the 60s or 70s, it isn't the 60s or 70s anymore and there is also not an equivalence in the current arrangement. Frankly, I don't think we should care that much, about whether men or women are more at fault for the sexual revolution. Do you disagree, and think we ought to prioritize the original blame?
Average men are getting a raw deal which is worse than women. In addition to dating prospects, frustrated men get hostility, while women get pandering.
It is only a minority of men who come as winners in the current arrangement, and that is also at expense of society.
I mostly agree with Scott's Greer take I linked towards which also includes a part about dating apps. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
While most women will get plenty of likes and matches, only top-tier men will get this level of engagement. A large percentage of women will match with the cream of the crop because men will swipe on everything. That small fraction of men will respond to this abundance with a refusal to settle down. Due to occasional matches, a majority of women believe they can obtain a guy from this small demographic. Society tells them to not settle for anything less, and they stay single in the hopes of one day getting chad to propose.
Attractive women in their prime (early-to-mid 20s) also have a similar level of abundance and don’t want to settle down either. Family would get in the way of their lifestyle. Their mind changes as soon as they hit 30, yet they’re now less capable of getting the man they think they deserve. The 30-something chads will eventually want to settle down, but they want a girl in her early-to-mid 20s (this reality motivates women’s rage over age gap relationships). But they’re less likely to obtain that dream girl, so they string along 30-something women who they will never propose to.
This situation doesn’t apply to all, but it does explain why a lot of millennial women complain about the dating market. The sense of infinite choice experienced by top-tier men and a large percentage of women diminishes the willingness to commit.
This is important, because people used to date more often through dates being arranged by friends and relatives, or meeting people through their community and in statistics showing how people meet, these have sharply declined, while dating apps have been replacing them.
There is also the issue of women dating up and their overepresentation in colleges and benefiting from affirmative action policies. Now, I recall when looking at statistics a rise in loneliness among women too, although there is certainly less pressure on them, but the current way things are arranged isn't necessarily great for women, even if it is worse for men. And even if there is pro female identitarian aspect to opposition towards changing things.
In any case, I don't think we should be paralyzed by narratives of original blame, on really any issues of consequence, but need to examine if the current arrangement is good, not necessary perfect, but working well, and if it isn't working well then it is time to change things. Of course, this is compatible with conservative changes, and reversing specific previous changes that resulted in things going in a worse direction.
I encountered the same types who were using incel to had been previously been using MRA as an insult in reddit political subreddits.
The reality is that in culture wars, the groups that are bullied more are those who have shown weakness and susceptibility to it by accepting it, and those who have a lower status position. And men who do pander to women qualify. Obviously this in it self is a massive problem for movements that claim to be for equality, and you will sometimes see people use the arguement that X demographic cares less about identity politics for themselves, so it is fine and proper to maintain a caste system.
A bit like the over focus on white extremism, or "right wing conspiracy theorists". All these are smear terms and propaganda from a political space that favors framing things in a manner that is excessively disfavorable towards its outgorups, men being one of them.
It is also important to note, that it is blatantly a bad argument that the existence of niche subcommunities justifies such behavior. There is obviously a backlash against feminism, but modern loser men have never been more pro feminist, and previous generations of more sexually successful men, had more antifeminist views. Although, being attractive and more social is probably something women appreciate more than having more feminist views and not being too social. But that frustration a) it would be unfair on current societal circumstances including issues like hypoagency, female overepresentation in colleges, and a lot other things, to entirely pin on men as a class while not criticising women which is what the prevailing bias is towards b) it is something different than the narrative that ties the increasing more isolated behavior as deserving because they hate women. This guy has a decent if somewhat more pro male take on decline of marriage. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
An aspect of this strategy is to keep in line under a mental slavery and acceptance of their inferior role, various demographics who accept that it is just and roper for them to have a subservient role as allies. My view is that these ideologies really need to be thrown in the dustbin, but it isn't as if I think unfairness towards women is impossible. Although we should also be conserned with important goals of the common good and not take a self serving lazy stance that greater comfort for particular demographics is greater good. For example neither women nor society benefits if birth rates crash and we have a culture that abhors necessary pain and self sacrifice.
What we see here is another example of a supremacist ideology in favor of specific demographic, also unconcerned about the negative effects n society in general, that hides under the pretense of being morally pure, and its dissenters evil. It would be a beating a dead horse to say that a male incel supremacist/focused ideology where the selfish interest of an incel is maximized at expense of women, and society, is undesirable. I would expect most people here already agree with the undesirability of such approach. Well, people should realize such movements are exaggerated enormously and dangled as scapegoats to justify the opposite extreme, and reject such manipulations.
Although, controversially, I don't see why the interests but not from a self destructive manner for society, of even incels of people who would have come incels, needs to not be considered. As should that of women, even incel women. Hint, hint, we need to move towards a situation that there is more romance, marriages, and births. And part of having a sane understanding on such controversial issues is putting your foot down and saying that the legitimate interests of groups like whites, men, whoever, matter. But, like all interests those have a limit and it relates also to how they affect the legitimate interests of other groups. There is a massive gray area and room for debate, but this idea that only the interests of progressive favored groups matter, and the interests of other groups is inherently an extremist proposition, is precisely why things have gone in a direction that is hateful and mistreating of groups whose interests are treated as illegitimate.
While I am in favor of the suppression/end of various sacred cows movements and their limited hangouts that are extreme in this manipulative manner I don't think the ideal is to be the opposite extreme, but to try to wisely favor good tradeoffs. There isn't a good reason to buy into this idea that without such movements and factions only the most extreme chaos and opposite approach would happen. Part of these fears relate also to exaggerating the bad things from the past and not considering the good things that have been eroded by such movements. Nor the fact that we can in fact choose to accept whatever if any reasonable points have been made, while still we ought to reject the unreasonable, which cannot be done under the factions that are uncompromising which is what we are dealing with now.
Considering some of his recent statements, maybe Nate believes that the Democrats have got off the deep end, and are dragging the country in the same direction. From that perspective, a republican supreme court can help avoid some of that, or at least won't contribute to it, while Democrat supreme court would end the first amendment for example, and implement a woke partisan agenda.
Sure, the sun is going to harm the kid's skin, and so what? Maximizing life expectancy at all costs does not lead to better outcomes. At some point you are getting very small % of reduction of risk for much bigger sacrifices.
For example this article https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/black-men-live-longer-inside-prison-out/352939/ claims (but now that I googled it I found also opposite claim) that black men live longer in prison than out, but obviously it isn't a good trade off to imprison people to increase their life expectancy.
In this case there is also the risk arising from less activity, and more obese and less social life. Exercise also has mental health benefits. Ironically, maximizing a safetyism of passivity and staying home, is more unsafe than a more active life which does expose people to various risks, but might decrease to an extend their stress, obesity levels, and make them less likely to be diabetic, suffert from heart diseases. It might also increase likelihood of more successful romantic life, which is good for the individual and good for society due both improvements of collective good, and raising birth rates.
Recommending more use of sunscreen would be a good idea though, including for adults who drive a lot and expose one side of their face to the sun. Not just to improve life expectancy but more to protect the skin from looking really old. Especially for one part of their face.
Doctors should promote behavior changes, and medicine but ones that are good trade offs. There are many.
It's just naked bias with extra steps. Whenever I see talk about "punching up/down," I mentally replace "up" with "direction I want to punch" and "down" with "direction I don't want punches going in," and it's a more useful way of analyzing the situation every single
I disagree. Many of the people who say they are punching up, are actually punching down.
Because there is such thing as who are deemed acceptable targets by society. Which can be observed by the laws, popular narratives, regulations and common practices.
That it is cultural far leftists with the whipping hand and chauvinists for their coalition of identities matters in regards to who we ought to focus upon.
Now, some progressives might have argued the same for some of their favored groups applied in the past. But whatever merit or not such view had in the past, their movement overreached and now it is the stage that this overreach has already happened.
What it means to punch up can even change through time, even if the rhetoric remains similar. This isn't to say that some rhetoric isn't inherently for something unjust, even if it comes from a weaker party. So, there are limitations on "punching up" even if some group is unfairly mistreated.
I think the main problem with the whole "punching up/down" or "egg vs wall" framework is that there's just no agreed-upon way to meaningfully determine which side is actually the stronger and the weaker side. In WW2, the Axis powers lost, so one could argue that, by definition, they are the weaker side, but then others could argue that merely losing to someone else isn't proof of being the weaker side, and we need to analyze the precise details of the situation. I
I agree with the later claim.
With the Israeli and Palestinian issue, one could pretend that expansionist Islamists or Jewish supremacists who want the entire so called promised land to be Jewish, to be victimized party.
At some level, some focus on "underdog" is like you say, pointless, because the "underdog" group is too wide, and it is in service in an agenda that misleads.
I do think there is a value both in WW2 and in other events, to also look at who is committing atrocities against whom. Are worldwide Muslims the underdog? No. Are the Palestinians the underdog and the more mistreated party? Yes. Does this mean they are morally pure and we should desire a reversal of the situation? No. Indeed, we ought not to put on any group an anointed permanent victim status, and be more skeptical. So, when pressuring, we should act wisely, not with limitless commitment and lack of skepticism. But who does it make sense to pressure?
Ultimately, I do think as you say we need to look cases on their merits, but I want to push back at completely de-legitimizing caring about who is the underdog, because it comes as a self serving narrative to excuse taking the permanent side of certain groups even while they have the upper hand and mistreat others.
Or we can say, that who is the aggressive party and is actually committing the most atrocities against others, is ought to be something that matters.
I am actually in favor of trying to combine might with adherence to certain ethical principles and to enforce good rules, so don't misunderstand my position as being about reflexively favoring weakness over strength. Even if I do sympathize over weak but genuine victims over strong predators. At the end of the day if I get what I want, those favoring good rules would be the stronger party.
The key is the comparison. Would a typical republican be just as interventionist as Trump was, or much more? The reality is that there is in fact a much more gung ho republican faction and there has been backlash against Trump for not going along with the neocon agenda, as much as they wanted.
Both in regards to Ukraine, Syria, and general American involvement and intervention with other countries.
A blind approach about anything is bad in general.
Sympathizing with the underdog has its merits, provided you try to think about the circumstances and aren't following a robotic logic and are very willing to update your logic. That right and wrong does matter, but certainly if you want to oppose the greater atrocities being committed, focusing on who is committing them matters. And having some flexibility in seeing what different civilian groups are more targeted, as different sides have the upper hand, is going to be helpful.
But you should have the foresight and know who you are dealing with, and ought not be a permanent ally of anyone.
A more wrongheaded approach is the one where certain groups, especially ethnic groups can do no right, and other groups can do no wrong. Which is ironically promoted by plenty of propaganda that tries to pull heartstrings of our sympathies of the underdog, or promote permanent victims by either distorting history, or cherry picking from issues that fit, but is misleading through the exclusion of other events from the dominant narrative.
So I do think there are limitations, in many approaches, including sympathizing with the underdog. But it does have some merit in a limited sense. For example, I blamed USSR but there are those who see them as the victimized party that can do no wrong, because of nazi attrocities and initial nazi victories. Not only that logic is wrong, but it also forgets the Soviet invasions and occupations of multiple weaker countries.
But even in cases where everyone pretty much agrees on which of two parties is strongest and weakest - well, it's still possible to be both strong and morally upstanding, or weak and morally degenerate. Common, even.
While that is possible, the discussion is about atrocities, invasions and ethnic cleansing so I don't think this analogy applies with the relevant examples. Israel is of course not morally upstanding and there is a worldwide backlash against them precisely because of their warcrimes against the Palestinians and also the rhetoric in those lines.
And that they are the stronger party is not irrelevant. Even if hypothetically both parties were immoral, the stronger one gets the backlash because they are the ones committing the atrocities. And it is the focus on the later that matters. It does make sense to focus on strong parties committing atrocities, but I certainly don't think we ought to be myopic about the dangers of weak, mistreated immoral parties, getting stronger of course.
It isn't as if much of the world that sees what Israel does far more negatively than you, are applying the robotic fallacious logic of siding with the underdog against morally upstanding stronger party, which is more of a strawman.
Trembling Mad calls this gerrymandering power. When comparing Germany and Poland, Germany is stronger, ergo Germany's the bad guy - boooo! When comparing Germany and the USA, the USA is stronger, ergo Germany's the good guy - yaaaaay! It entirely depends on how close you zoom in.
Well, if decolonization movement only opposed European colonization of their countries but didn't pretend colonizing European countries was decolonization, then that would make them a more ethical movement than it is. Who is making the aggressive action at others expense matters. And plenty of aggressive action comes from a stronger party towards a weaker one. Even if in some cases the party that is de facto weaker, is due to a lack of will. So, the "who is the aggressor/who is commiting attrocities" complicates things from a more simplistic underdog model, and there as explained previously even more things beside to add to ones model.
It does seem that the hostility towards the underdog model here is not in favor of a more accurate way that is more flexible to changing realities, but more to promote a more simplistic model that declares certain factions as "good guys", and excuse their actions in a manner that isn't really fitting. In fact, even in WW2, atrocities towards civilians committed by the allies, especially the Soviet Union, matter. Especially when one considers the murderous records of the Soviets against non Germans too. Not only is using WW2 as a card to excuse atrocities today, both morally and factually wrong, it usually comes along views that are incorrect about WW2 itself. Indeed, ironically even the non Soviet allies, if they followed even more along this logic of "can do no wrong" their record would be even closer to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Because there were people with such logic back then. That there is some difference, also relates to the existence of some backlash within their societies and the existence of people who didn't follow the logic of "can do no wrong". Like for example the backlash against Morgenthau's plan. And those who expressed such backlash sometimes got heat for it.
Well, yes, but if you sympathize with the underdog, the German invasion of multiple other countries is going to matter a lot. I am not convinced such sympathies that would lead someone to sympathize with the Palestinians, would have let to them to sympathize with Germany. Following such logic in a non stupid manner might lead someone to oppose the mass rapes or mass murder of Germans while the winning Soviet army was marching, or oppose the mass murderous Morgenthau Plan. But would that be wrong? No it wouldn't. It was also good that the Japanese after WW2 were not subject to being punished in the same kind they planned to deal with China.
I do think that saying things like "No matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg.”", can lead to stupid conclusions though.
The Axis powers were not the weaker party in WW2. They invaded and defeated various countries that were weaker than them.
The Soviets also did this against various countries not called Germany, so actually I disagree with even an analysis of WW2 that blames everything on Germany. Actually both national socialist Germany and the Soviet Union started the war in europe by invading various other countries and having the goal of hegemony in Europe and be inclined to attack each other too for such purpose. Add to that a quite mass murderous record, and not only modern analogies break down, but we ought not to take a pro USSR stance in WW2. You can have an anti-nazi position of course and I would agree. Both an anti-soviet, and anti-nazi position makes sense in relation to a pro human rights, national sovereigntiy, anti-invasion/attrocities/colonialism take. This isn't to say that taking a stance that "our atrocities are good and justifiable", is justifiable for the non Soviet allies, neither.
If you would like a good book to recommend that examines more the Soviet side and Stalin's machiavelian strategy, I would highly recommend Stalin's war for those interested.
It is more that one man can not be an administration, even if the appeal of Trumpism is the fantasy of change.
For all the promise of Trump changing things, at the end of the day his administration will have plenty of typical republicans. But Trump at least represents a promise. And there is some difference.
You also ought to give Trump credit for being an obstacle to a much more neocon, interventionist, deep state aligned republican administration. And you would be getting a different administration if people more like Pompeo, Mike Pense, etc, were the president.
I do agree with another poster that people should put more pressure on politicians like Trump who they think are supposedly on their side, when pushing counter establishment moves. But also towards other politicians of course.
While some criticism can be warranted, and Greenwald manages to usually be fair about this issue, blaming everything on Trump and doubly so focusing the blame on Trump fans is unwise, even if one isn't doing so from a lefty perspective. It lets off the hook more powerful, numerous factions like the neocons. Especially the permanent bureaucrats who don't change, or lobbyists, or the media and those that run it. It is better to focus on them, than Trump fans who are at least hopeful of a bigger change than what Trumpism probably can bring.
Doctors have a duty to do no harm and you aren't offering a service like any other business but are obligated to either help patient's have improved outcomes, or at least not to harm them.
The attitude "fuck, why not" goes completely against how the medical profession ought to operate and if followed by doctors in practice, it should come with professional penalties. Indeed, this even applies to more mild things. Cardiologists don't tell their obese patients, at least if they are good, "eat what you want, what the fuck do I care", they tell them to change their diet, and to walk around. And much more. And should not be Cardiologists if they don't do this.
Doctors shouldn't help self destructive patients to destroy themselves either totally, or in part. I certainly wouldn't want even a cent to go to pay for doctors doing that. Nor should they be allowed.
Now, medical tyranny of safetyism is another danger of doctors acting unwisely which also goes against proper medical ethics. Indeed in certain studies apparently prisoners of certain demographics, IIRC black Americans, live longer than those of same demographic outside of prison, but maximizing life at expense of imprisoning people would obviously be an undesirable outcome.
Then there is the worst behavior for doctors to hypothetically engage in which is a combination of both. Being too tyrannical where one ought not to, and not guiding patients or restricting them from self harm but indulging in it, where one ought not to. With some of the covid measures and lockdowns and the trans issue and the OP issue we can see that they can coexist among the medical establishment.
Anyhow, ideally we would see from doctors some level of paternalism but not too much, and focused in the areas it is wise too focus upon, but also seeing "do no harm" as an important principle. Which means not allowing operations described in the OP and then we would need to see the proper way to deal with doctors who abused their position and mutilated their patients. Whether only very severe professional penalties are appropriate, or whether there should be prison time as well.
And if we hypothesize some alternative society in which those policies would be popular, then would you even need them in the first place? Hm, maybe they would still be useful to fix the pro-natal attitudes and fight against any potential value drift.
On plenty of issues factions that are minorities impose their agenda on larger more disorganized majorities by capturing institutions of power and by creating organizations and lobby groups. Then they promote propaganda about those opposing their blatant actions being conspiracy theorists.
Also, after policies have been promoted by energetic factions with power, a certain % of people are willing to change their mind. We have seen this with gay marriage. This doesn't apply to all policies, some might be too extreme to not be disliked by the majority, but it does apply to many.
If natalist measures are implemented, then you are going to get people who go along with it who previously wouldn't have supported these kind of policies. Part of that might also be the power centers promoting propaganda.
And beyond just changing one's opinion, the policies, quotas themselves affect behavior.
This fits but I actually thought of the Praetorian Guard too when it comes to the Roman analogies.
When dealing with the contemporary version of it, I hope we don't have to wait as long as the Romans did for Severus Septimius to put the Praetorian Guard in its place.
More options
Context Copy link