BANNED USER: personal attacks
>Unban in 2d 17h 53m
Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Banned by: @Amadan
Yes for the first question.
To see things only from the perspective of dissuading Russian aggression and not American aggression against other countries is flawed and usually comes from bias.
Because it sounds like you’re arguing against continued U.S. support. But that’s an incredibly perverse incentive for Russia. To any would-be invader, really.
It doesn't sound like I am arguing about either more or less US support actually. What I am arguing is that American foreign policy is not about dissuading aggression but machiavelian and willing to both invade countries, commit coups, and also instigate proxy wars.
I do believe that supporting a negotiated peace is the better alternative than the continued meat grinder. American influence over Ukraine is such to be able to push things in that direction and in fact it seems that it was the UK (likely acting with USA support) that stopped the real possibility of a peace between Ukraine and Russia.
It is in fact a perverse incentive to focus only on Russian aggression and excuse American aggression. American behavior is going to affect the behavior of countries like Russia too.
In general, I don't see only dangers from American imperialism but also from China and Russia becoming more beligerent. My preference and advice for trying to deescalate is therefore not only directed towards the USA. Although certainly I am going to focus more about where there is more pushback and what is more relevant to the audience I am talking to. There aren't here any sizable number of Chinese imperialists arguing that China should invade Taiwan because of getting revenge over century of humiliation or by promoting only America bad narrative while pretending that Chinese imperialism would be no problem. Or arguing for China to invade multiple of its neighbors because they are in an American led coalition to destroy China. The bad behavior of each power also affect each other, just like a willingness to not push past certain red lines and having trade which is consistent with some protectionism and showing some willingness to compromise which can also incentivize more pro cooperation behavior.
Ultimately, the faction of American imperialists are not out to dissuade imperialism but themselves are a threat to world peace, and additionally to the rights of peoples under their rule. To only focus on Russia, and not acknowledge the problem of American foreign policy in terms of destructive coups, color revolutions, including what resulted in aggressive moves including shelling of more Russian areas in Ukraine and in theaters such as Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Israel, with promises of further escalation in places like Iran, is not how you avoid moral hazard but how you ensure it remains there. Both in terms of American bad behavior, and encouraging other countries. Especially when the rhetoric of escalation building towards a situation closer to WW3 is there. This isn't Iraq where the destructive incompetence of belligerent tunnel vision is important but still lower stakes. The stakes, especially when one also considers nukes, couldn't be higher.
Unlike you who want an one sided perspective, I am not going to defend the Russian invasion. I am just going to condemn American imperialists for invading multiple countries and trying to engineer proxy war and overstep deliberately on the red line of countries like Russia, knowing this would cause war. And even justifying it after the fact as a worthy investment since they see the meat grinder as good if Russians are dying.
Also the rhetoric about toppling Putin and dismantling Russia, which when it comes from GAE that has done this throughout the world, it has teeth.
Although Russia has become more militarily capable and built further its industry and their alliance with China and economic ties grew, and moreover multiple other countries have started increasingly trading without using the dollar.
It is anti-neocon not Pro China invading Taiwan or Russia invading Ukraine. In fact i would rather that China avoids invading Taiwan in the future and would consider that a world destabilizing move. One that should be dissuaded.
It is your perspective that tries to create a simplistic Russia bad, GAE good here.
Often times, "nuance" is a way to attempt to use small second, third, and fourth order effects as an excuse to ignore enormous first-order effects.
You have been consistently ignoring American invasions of various countries, color revolutions, and American attempts to engineer the conflict that happened.
The reality is that neocon USA is not the defender of world peace against the evil Chinese and Russians but a menace in its own right. One that had been a bigger menace after fall of soviet union than the other two, although that is also because of the weaker position of Russia and China. And that also also encourages the elites of such countries to act in a similar manner, bringing things closer to WW3. One could also argue that further imperialism by China or Russia, also encourages more bad American behavior.
The correct take is to favor elites that see their interest in undermining each others warmongering and also see some value in cooperation. Things were closer in that direction in regards to Russian, American and Chinese relationship at one point. And it wasn't the Russian invasion that started changing this. This came after the color revolution in Ukraine and after the destruction of various countries and after rise of rhetoric about bringing the same recipe to China and Russia. Of course the rise of China has played its role too.
I don't believe everything is the US fault, but I do believe neocon agenda USA is a bad actor that holds zero respect for international law and doesn't even respect its own people. That the neocon faction acts in an obviously machiavelian manner and even promotes such arguments from a might is right perspective then plays a motte and bailey with moralism.
Whether in Iraq, Syria, Libya, or wanting to bomb Iran, Israel, or yes Ukraine as well, the American foreign policy has been a destructive one that shows little respect to international law.
It isn't the only bad actor. Actually one of the problem with being maximally beligerent is that is infectious, and gives others the excuse to act likewise. In my ideal world great powers would try to constrain each other bad behavior and also due to their own interest oppose each others imperialistic tyrannical behavior against other countries. While cooperating in win win ways.
but Russia which tried to topple Ukraine.
You are forgetting the color revolution in Ukraine with American participation, and Ukrainian shelling of Russian areas and laws against Russian language. While the USA has been training Ukrainians and Ukraine have been having their Azov regiments. There is also American support for removing Assad, and toppling Gaddafi, Saddam, talking of bombing Iran and a big history of warmongering and regime change worldwide. And the rhetoric about removing Putin and supporting opposition. Then there are the coups of the CIA worldwide, of which Putin is especially aware of.
People are not going to be gullible and not take this in mind just because it would be in the interest of neocons to do so.
Also, the extreme far leftist agendas promoted by the USA that relate to their hatred of Putin for not going along, and to an extend to his opposition to them. Not to mention the fact that some of the oligarchs that looted Russia that left from Putin, fled to the USA and have been advocating for regime change.
Of course Russia and China have their own belligerence and imperialistic agendas. Russians are responsible for their invasion and previously supporting rebels. If China invades Taiwan they would be responsible for that as they have their responsibility for the bullying of their neighbors in terms of fishing rights and more.
This still doesn't make American imperialists any less bad. Nor does it make sense to support them under the guise of pro west sentiment.
Importantly, in addition to their other sins, neocon elites are people who aren't at all respecting national self determination and dislike the people they rule. They don't respect freedoms neither and are supportive of cancel culture and authoritarianism at home while pretending to be bringing liberation abroad when they bomb other countries or try to escalate conflicts. They don't value the interests of the people they rule as a group and try to enforce national self hatred and prioritization of foreign immigrants, and are following tyrannical policies that lead to the destruction of european ethnic groups.
the West
The neocon agenda sharers are fundamentally anti west. In that they and Dugin, or Chomsky are all in the same side. They only differ on the type of tyrant they want the west to be ruled by, and maybe in regards to some of the details about which groups should be on top. But neither are for the west as a civilization and western peoples. Nor do they respect their rights.
They are further from being the west, than the Communists were Russia/Ukraine and all other countries under their rule.
What is weird is to see an attempt to go back to the neocon consensus when part of Trump's appeal was to criticize their failures, including their over the top hostility towards other great powers.
I don't think being a fanboy of Russia, China, Iran is the way to go, but it is healthy in general, including for the right wing in particular to be skeptical of American imperialism. Especially since modern American militarism is of a woke empire that is increasingly hostile to right wingers.
If some people on the right have a more mature take after decades of neocon failures that they have experienced, and also due to that hostility then that is a good thing.
And of course, from the time of George Washington to today, it is a legitimate and correct agenda to not want your country subordinate to foreign lobbies. This is an aspect of American involvement in foreign conflicts. Imperial overreach and war with Iran is not in the interest of the American people.
From a broader perspective than just American interest, I prefer the time Russians and other Europeans traded with each other, over the current situation and while sane protectionism, or reacting to harmful trading and other practices against you is fine, I am skeptical of what I see as the sentiment of cutting off other powers. Or plans that lead us into war.
It is better for the world to try to work with them, than escalate things into conflict and topple heir countries. This isn't just a right wing take, but it is certainly the case that right wingers in western countries should not let themselves be sacrificed for a global empire that is against them both ideologically and even as ethnic groups. Plus, pragmatically there isn't an existential threat from Russia, nor China, and certainly not from Iran and warmongering raises risks.
Deescalation and an attempt of a modus vivendi between different power blocks is the better idea. Especially in the current circumstances. Part of that does include having a capable military incidentally. Being strong while choosing a good deal over both one sided appeasement nor trying to topple other countries and their leadership is the better alternative than what American elites did, especially when looking at China. Which is to be pro China as China was growing in power, and turn against it when it had already exceeded USA in productive capacity and became the richest country when accounting for purchasing power parity.
Isn't deboer a "Marxist of an old-school variety"?" https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/about He is sort of right about the anarchists but doesn't the same apply to him?
My view is that the claimed utopian intentions of anarchocommunists is less relevant than their behavior while in power, or what they support politically. It is still ironic for an old school marxist to be a critic of anarchists for supporting state repression, when the same contradiction exists in old school marxism.
You don't have to address everything. You can either disengage in a less rude manner or you could have addressed specific points from a longer post.
Like the argument that cultural appropriation is not the driving force but that racist prejudices in favor of progressive tribes like jews, blacks, and such groups honor being put on a pedestal. And that Scott fails to get away from that.
Or the argument that legitimizing lived experiences is a mistake because the concept is used by such groups to promote narratives of their lived experience that are too demanding and disrespectful of other groups.
Or the argument that Jews as a tendency and Scott Siskind, but not all Jews, tend to not fit into the white American ethnic category due to having a hostility towards white non Jews and very strong nationalism and strong Jewish identity. You brought Italians, I countered with various arguements and points, including explaining how even groups that belong in a certain broader group like ww2 Germans and Japanese through their own excessive ethnic nationalism acted against other Europeans and Asians. The point being that a reduction in Jewish nationalism and more friendly view of white Christians, is a prerequisite to a greater share of (American Jews) them fitting in a broader white American ethnic category, in the way that a few Jews like Amy Wax do fit.
You chose to claim that my argument was entirely incomprehensible. Even though at least some people disagreed, even though one can also be downvoted when they make a valid point.
All of these are points one can engage with. In fact, if I develop them in more detail doesn't even stop you from engaging in a shorter manner. It isn't as if length is always bad, it can be necessary to back certain views down further.
Of course window of opportunity of discussing them is lost since the thread is old and you undermined it by refusing to engage and asking for work. And then additionally trying to imply that I shouldn't be posting because you can't understand what valid reason I might have to be commenting on this site...
Anyways, I very much hope you wouldn't spend much time writing 3 paragraphs to clarify the position you already thought over in great detail, enough to write 3234 words(including quotes) in just your previous response. My whole point is I want something short, about 250 words max, that I can actually understand.
I don't know why you comment on this site. I do it because I enjoy being able to think through my thoughts, have others point out any mistakes I make or facts I miss, to convince others of my positions, and to get upvotes. You writing out what's basically a 12 page essay that I can't understand the thesis or conclusion of doesn't accomplish much of that, and I don't know what it did accomplish
There are people who have a different preference to you and prefer to write fewer times and longer posts that raise various different points relating to the discussion subject together. If you genuinely seek to understand others and to learn from mistakes, you either engage with parts of that and ask clarifications where you don't understand. Or if your preference is only shorter posts, then that is part of your preference and you can in fact politely tell people you don't want to engage with something longer without asking them additional work. Maybe you can tolerate only some kind of longer posts. You should try to appreciate that there are people who can get something from posts that you don't understand, nor care for.
The attitude that the other person's writings are completely without merit and questioning why they comment is not an attitude that comes from someone whose motivation is to understand others and learn from their mistakes. But from someone who hates those with strongly different views on certain culture war issues and wants them to not post and tries to undermine them and seeks an excuse to do that and not engage intellectually with others. Maybe there is also something there about not respecting people whose writing style you don't like.
If you really want more understanding, you need to show more patience of other people, or not engage with them if you don't have that. For them not posting would promote less understanding, and me not articulating where you have been wrong would not allow you to learn from your mistakes. If you really want to do that, there is an opportunity there, and the barrier is you not wanting to engage. Indeed, I am also unable to see where my argument might have holes if the other person just asks for more work, instead of addressing at least a part of what is already there.
Whether they disagree with you, or their writing style preference isn't to your liking, or has its own flaws, your response is not the proper way to handle this. Nobody is perfect, so if you made or make in future times less onerous demands on specific points, while engaging with other arguments, I and people in my position would be more willing to accommodate you in part, and interpret that there is something worth engaging with here. That the other person isn't just trolling us, and there is an assurance that we aren't still going to get "you aren't making a point" as a response. Of course it is also fair to ask "what exactly you have a difficulty understanding with this point", and for some back and forth collaborative communication rather that it being an one sided effort.
In addition to the points you mentioned, to add to the second point, we also saw a movement against male gaze and sexualization of women. So the rising influence of feminists and liberals in general which goes beyond just me too. Sarkeesian's movement playing a role to that. At some point for enough of those who are influential, their version of ideology updated to something that is more prudish. Whether they adapted to that in their a) journolists and other more direct coordination mechanisms b) Through other ways they ideological converge by whatever signals they pay attention to.
It also might be the case that current generation of young people are less horny and more "tame". This is again a variation of parts of what you mentioned with 2. But it is driven by attitudes that are more embarrassed of sex than primarily motivated by the fear of being accused of sexual assault.
Transgenderism was less popular when it was more counterculture and rose in popularity after being promoted by elites.
The narrative of current progressive movements representing a reaction against a stiffing conservative order is not true. It rose after the liberal institutions promoted much more aggressively in the 2010s such agendas that they have been promoting in a weaker fashion before. They especially did this for the trans issue where there has been a bigger disparity in the fervor in 2010s and how they promoted it previously. And it rose in an age that wasn't conservative except by the standards of the progressive movement. Where conservative appeasement has been a reason for things turning in a progressive direction and not the solution. Conservatives compromising with progressives will not lead to progressives to back down, but to double down. This doesn't mean that conservatives should be purity spiraling, but they should refuse to compromise in many issues of principle and maintain wise standards.
Without such elite push, youthful transgression energy would focus on something less harmful. To the extend it is true that there is a social contagion, this is an argument that favors the conservative side in the trans debate. Even if as you argue there are also many that aren't going to seriously live the trans life. Better for people who had such inclinations for transgression, to be something like goth, punk, etc. Or even for their transgression to be limited to rebelling against illegitimate authority, like corrupt power abusing political factions, or warmongering.
An escalation of transgression isn't something that must be respected as a law of the universe when the consequences are severe enough.
To give another example. Lets say that to an extend there has been a fad of anorexia among teenage girls, or even of self harm which also relate with transgression having an appeal. Someone could claim that many of those affected might not kill themselves, or get over it. And yet it is still harmful, and more decisively harmful for a part of those affected. This kind of transgression is the kind that should be suppressed and not encouraged.
I appreciate this. The issue is that appeal lacks teeth because most progressives do know that such laws will be used in a pro progressive direction. I think it is a better idea to undermine the idea that political neutrality is about ignoring the partisan direction of such laws.
But maybe it is useful for both you to be making the more general argument and someone like me to be making the kind of argument I have made. Like one playing the good cop and the other the bad cop.
This is a "why do you beat your wife" question. I have never used AI to write, or edit a post, so I have can't see how they read like it, or why.
I doubt that an AI would even succeed in writing something so politically incorrect. In fact their prompts tend to be making excuses not to address issues, and they sound more like the rhetoric one sees by the liberal side. I usually edit in real time to fix some grammatical mistakes and change parts of it. Seems like a convenient way to attack and distract with low effort so I would just ignore it except I address it just so it isn't used as an excuse for mod action.
Do you have anything of value to say about the actual issue?
Edit: In a more succinct version of my previous post.
The idea that Jewish faults are not up to debate and non Jewish faults at expense of Jews can be overly focused upon without restraint, is absurd and is understandable why people will increasingly reject this. It is also understandable to see people react against this when such agendas relate to Noel Ignatiev type narratives and come along with increased authoritarianism.
As a movement with such ideology has itself become more influential naturally you see rising opposition. The reality is that the racism, sexism, antisemitism narratives label moderate positions as racist, promote a wildly one sided view, and the groups they favor are definitely not oppressed. Just as feminism by how it clasifies misogyny, is misandrist, same applies to the antisemitic narrative. The Jews who have been themselves very important to a Jewish supremacist movement of course are going to catch more criticism. Especially the powerful Jewish NGOs like the ADL.
Ideally, the progressive framework of sacred cows should be supplanted, with a framework of favoring more balanced, even handed treatment of different identity groups which would include both negative criticisms and and positive observations. A good way to do that would be growing intolerance towards the movement that weaponizes history to promote the wildly one sided narratives. Whether it is done by distorting reality, or by cherry picking events including attrocities and hiding inconvenient ones.
Rather than letting people like Jonathan Greenblat win by getting intimidated by words like slavery, holocaust, racism, antisemitism, we should instead see people ridicule such attempts and reject them. There is nothing inconsistent to thinking for example that the practice of slavery is abhorrent but also having no patience for those using the narrative of slavery to vilify and harm southerners, or Europeans.
I wonder where does this end. Like in Ukraine stopping elections altogether.
New drafts as some figures have started calling now.
The process of machiavelian behavior of what are called democracies is not new. Especially of lobbies that control politicians and the CIA with its fronts and reach in media, social media. Another problem has been western elites refusal to follow public demands on certain very immportant issues, especially mass migration. Rule by the people, FOR the people most importantly has been a massive problem while in certain issues, Putin and Xi who also have ruled more for their people. At least in terms of being more supportive of a positive identity for their people.
I am sure you would still be giving them the label democracies as they adopt the authoritarian methods that you see other goverments you label dictatorships including Russia (which is in theory also a democracy). In substance if you are trying to get democracies to adopt the authoritarian methods of what you call dictatorships, then you are advocating for them to continue transforming into authoritarian states that only wear the skin suit of democratic free societies.
The end of said transformation, even if the kind of thing that comes of that wins, it would be a victory of something totalitarian, ugly and a loss for those under its rule. But I don't think it can win, the way China has been investing and coordinating with so many other countries, can't really be shut down. I don't see why people should prefer a world seperated in big power blocks fighting each other, over more reasonable compromise.
I prefer the time when the Russians sell natural gas to europeans, the trouble with Ukraine didn't started, and we had mutual beneficial relationship and liked each other more. European manufacturing benefited from that and the whole Ukraine issue has been a destructive mess. Blindly hating the Chinese and Russians is unwise and lead the world to unnecessary conflict.
Trying to have mutual beneficial relationship with the Chinese too, is the best choice for non American powers as well. Especially if you want to be a real democracy, keeping down those who see permanent war and national security crisis against foreign powers to promote authoritarianism abroad is important. And there is a relationship between being a democracy and restraining excessive bellicose warmongers, and not adopting their anti-freedom agenda. Ironically, some of what I argue does have some crossover with mid 2000s liberalism, and really I am not against that. I have a problem with the liberal tribe for how extreme they are but I find that if you try to take the opposite position to any group on all issues and purity spiral in opposite direction, you get an idiotic extremist wildly unreasonable viewpoint. Plus, liberal tribe and liberalism has also its association with neocons.
I hope people who claim to value freedom here try to genuinely understand the reality that the neocon threat to your freedoms, supposedly to fight foreign threats (maybe Iran will be added to the mix) is greater than the influence those foreign countries have on you. And bills giving power to the goverment to ban as they please will be weaponized against domestic enemies of an establishment captured by ideological extremists.
I still wouldn't oppose punishing western companies for say censoring western media or forums, in relation to the preference of China. The same idea I mentioned above where it isn't sensible to be purity spiraling in opposite direction. There isn't any surgical wise policy here however but a slippery slope towards further tyranny under the idea of permanent war, and permanent national security threat. Of treating legitimate opponents of already tyrannical excesses like Tucker Carlson, as suspected traitors. Tucker Carlson isn't by accident perhaps the most popular/higher reach (especially when one considers suppression) journalist. He does promote some kooky stuff but has his reach by also often talking truth to power and saying things that are unsaid by others but are necessary to be said. A regime where coordinating deep state creatures shut down dissent and where more overltly bills banning it is done, is a totalitarian regime and certainly one ruled by an oligarchy for the oligarchy. Not one by the demos, for the demos.
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.
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.
I am not opposed to a mixed carrot and stick approach but there are plenty of carrots that haven't been tried and things that aren't carrots but changing the current arrangement. I oppose maximizing the sticks as unnecessarily cruel and less likely to work than some more politically incorect changes that are also less about sticks. The compulsion policies should not just be directed at single people but also business, unviersities, and all sorts of powerful institutions.
Lets mention one issue that we could see positive change:
Our current model is that careerism and education is pushed as a model for the youth in their family formation years. Add to that female overepresentation in universities and desire to date up.
This is a result of plenty of subsidies and encouragement. Stopping this and strongly encouraging by various policies instead family formation as a priority, especially for women in that window would make much more sense. And we don't even have to exclude careerism and education as goals, just put them as less a priority. Especially for women.
But women always worked, and in the past it was a more village setting and also with less machines and globalized system of productions. So it doesn't make sense to go back to that, but our current model also doesn't make sense. We need greater prioritisation of family formation.
Beyond that, people can live long life. We should deal with overcredentialism and wasting time on those issues, but what is wrong with spending more time being educated in your thirties, delaying your career focus too in 20s and 30s, but having a family. From a perspective of the greater good, it is a better arrangement. Men becoming in such a situation higher economic status and more attractive for women will also increase the marriage rate.
And directly teach people in schools, and through television programs promoting large families, the value of larger families. Especially promote "propaganda" in the good sense especially towards women and girls which in fact is in line with their insticts, and also better inform them about the fertility window. For example bring along married mothers with their husband with multiple children in school for "family planning" school lessons and strongly encourage the model of a married family with multiple children through both the media and such experiences.
Also, it is obviously the case that pets have taken some of the role of the need for children for various people including some who do have children and might have had more without pets. I dunno what the correct policy response would be to that, but it is a factor.
Another thing that is politically incorrect is that to do this and other changes, you simply need to suppress the feminist and liberal establishment and anti natalist liberals in general which are not going to stand for this. They can go as far as support canceling pro natalist conferences. Many liberals do not want to solve this issue but want to downplay it and point to the inevitability of solving it. Because they oppose the more conservative, or anti-feminist changes, or also are hostile to stopping what facilitates the replacement of western populations, and are also hostile to those nativists who oppose the destruction of their nations through mass migration and low ferility rates. They are also motivated by the fact that liberalism will be blamed for the drop of fertility rates.
Imagine you are in a sinking ship which has a hole in it. And you got a part of the crew and passengers claiming that there is nothing to be done and they are discouraging those trying to cover it. You either sink, or you stop them and keep them out of influence and strip the demoralizing pro inaction crew from their position.
So if we want a stick, lets also talk about suppressing factions who oppose this, and promoting the pro-natalists. Because you are not going to get into the position of implementing serious carrots and serious sticks, without having natalists to capture power and suppress anti-natalists which are made especially by plenty of liberals. We could call this faction liberal fundamentalists/dogmatists, while maybe ideally we could get some people who sympathized or identified with liberalism, to break from it.
By directly promoting natalism and suppressing anti natalism you could get it through. It's how liberalism and its version called wokeness, and the Israel lobby and even Covid measures were promoted. Fundamentally, you can as a society through both authoritarian means and through education and having people capturing institutions that push certain agendas, get plenty but not all people to change their attitudes. Most importantly you can get policy changes in this way. So a change for natalism is possible. Although the point isn't just to change things from a bad direction, but to change things towards a wise direction. Which I believe would require a more multi-faceted approach than maximizing sticks in single areas. So you can't be maximally authoritarian without considering what you are promoting and being willing to adjust where you overreached. Although that is far from the current problem, and really being wise requires not being too impotent to act as well.
More options
Context Copy link