Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
No bio...
User ID: 290
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
There is a difference between supporting Zionism because "we'd rather stay here, but just in case they decide they don't want us here..." and supporting Zionism because "the normal purpose of a country is as a home for a specific ethnic group; we were born with an un-changeable primary duty towards our group's homeland."
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
The Right Wing shouldn't support a people that don't support them
Many Jewish people do support the right wing, at least the more idea-focused parts. More might have done so if they didn't get the impression (whether accurate or not) that "You support us, we'll support you" meant something along the lines of "You obey and agree with us in every way, and we'll grudgingly let you live in the crappiest parts of our land instead of leaving you to be slaughtered, as long as you acknowledge us as your superiors."
Also, not everything ought to be transactional. Sometimes, one should help people not because they have done or will do something for you, but because it is the right thing to do.
Jews are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Israel.
Sympathy is not the same as loyalty. Many Jewish American citizens have sympathy towards Israel, because they have relatives there whom they know personally, and because they need there to be a place where they are allowed to exist even if every Gentile doesn't want them.
(Also, some people complain that Jewish U. S. citizens don't have enough loyalty to Israel.)
If accepting them
Grudgingly, when at all.
and handing them power
The Jewish people were not 'handed power' as a group. They were, in fact, often systematically kept away from power.
failed to earn their loyalty to the ethnic stock
Or don't consider an 'ethnic stock' to be a thing one can be loyal to.
you should wonder why they were expelled so much throughout history
My hypothesis is that a religion founded on arguing with G-d, and which has a big book consisting of centuries of arguments by its clergy over every minute detail of Scripture, is likely to be inconvenient for any person or group whose agenda relies on being able to say that black 0.4β0.7 ΞΌm albedo < 0.01 is white 0.4β0.7 ΞΌm albedo > 0.99 and have everybody reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears. This would explain the rise of anti-Semitism among the wokists SJWs PJFTMWTIAATUftSSaPCYDs.
However, I don't think it matters why they were not welcomed. What matters is that millions of human beings, each with hopes, dreams, feelings, people they loved, eyes, hands, organs, senses, dimensions, were denied a safe place to live, and sent back to be slaughtered.
That is why Jewish people are justifiably not confident that they are safe if they are a minority in every country; the same logic does not apply to white people.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
· Edited 3d ago
The US took in the Jews
Except for the ones on the MS St Louis.
and didn't treat them as second-class citizens
Except when they did.
but apparently that didn't earn the US any claim to maintain a White population in your mind?
No. You're not supposed to treat people as second-class citizens, just like you're supposed to take care of your children and not end up in gaol.
Furthermore, even if white Americans had gone shown supererogatory virtue, that would still not entitle them to an ethnic majority, because, in the general case, 'being entitled to an ethnic majority' isn't a thing. We make an exception in the case of Israel and the Jewish people due to their long history of being regularly persecuted, combined with the post-WWI implementation of modern border controls. (If I had a magic 'open borders, for everyone except horrifying predatory criminals [judged on an individual basis], in every country including Israel, I would at least be tempted to press it, knowing that Jewish people facing anti-Semitic persecution would always be able to leave any country which persecuted them. However, in a world in which countries claim a general right to refuse entry for any or no reason, it is anti-Semitic to expect Jewish people to bet their lives on the hope that the Nations will be feeling generous.)
It certainly failed to earn the ethnic loyalty of Jews to White Americans.
Ethnic loyalty? No, largely because Jewish people sympathetic to ethno-nationalism mostly live in Israel! Jewish Americans sympathetic to civic nationalism show loyalty to American ideals such as the Constitution.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
This is only coherent if you set the clock at a completely arbitrary cutoff
Only semi-arbitrary. We cut it off post-WWII because that's when we realised that the seizure of territory by force of arms was increasingly damaging, and thus could not be allowed to continue in the future. Thus we set the cut-off at 'now' as a Schelling point, because we had to set it somewhere, and 'now' was the least disruptive.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
As the old line goes, the socialists will never forgive the Jews for surviving the Holocaust.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
That comparison might make more sense if white people had been a minority in every country for c. 2,000 years, been treated as second-class citizens when tolerated, expelled whenever the majority needed a scapegoat, and then subjected to attempted extermination with everyone prescient enough to try to escape refused entry by every country they tried to flee to.
Unless and until that happens, I see no contradiction in asserting that Jewish people are entitled to a state in which they are a majority, while white people are not.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
You can say, as a matter of principle, that no ethnostate should exist.
The problem is that it practically seems to end up as "Israel in particular should dissolve itself first". People find that suspicious.
I believe that Israel might very well be the only justified ethno-state; every invocation of '109 countries' by certain political tendencies only serves to strengthen that conviction.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
What about the position that itβs perfectly fine and dandy for the Jews to have somewhere they can exist, but that it should be somewhere other than the Levant?
That would not necessarily be anti-Semitic, if it were argued in good faith, and the proposal involved the alternate Jewish homeland being an independent state, with a Jewish majority, and whichever country it was carved out of renouncing all claim to the territory.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
3d ago
In my view, someone boycotting Israel could, theoretically not be anti-Semitic, but I don't know of any organised movement that qualifies.
For such a movement to demonstrate not being anti-Semites, they would need to state conditions XYZ, such that:
- Israel could fulfil XYZ without jeopardising its existence, and
- the movement declares that, if Israel fulfils XYZ, they will end the boycott.
However, doing this would lose the support of those who oppose Israel not out of sympathy for Palestinian children but anger that the Jews have somewhere where they can exist without the permission of the Nations.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
5d ago
The only case I can see is a relative one - people opposed to liberal views aren't banned as much anymore, and that's a disadvantage compared to what they have.
"When one is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
5d ago
Point remains if a parent makes a mistake they'll usually by wrecked with guilt
I'm not talking about mistakes but conflicts of interests; 'parent has ideology with which child does not agree, makes decision based on that ideology, causes suffering to child, refuses to consider that they may have been wrong.'
So it just so happens that this blog post was talking about the exact same drug
That'll larn me to skim the article -- I thought they were talking about surgery!
In the case of puberty blockers, I would only intervene insofar as to ensure that the child and parents had at least heard the counterargument to their proposal; I could see applying the same argument to gender transition.
If you want to live in platonic / marxist utopia where all children belong to the state
Again, children aren't property. Not belonging to their parents doesn't mean that they must belong to someone else, it means that they belong to themselves; whatever authority we give to parents starts from zero even if it doesn't stay there.
If you actually believed that this means parents have no authority over their children, you'd be quoting Rousseau, not the American founding fathers.
I was quoting the Declaration as opposition to the divine right of kings.
"As above, so below" was the extrapolation to the divine right of parents.
Yes, that's my point. If you were advocating pure libertarianism, I could consider your idea of removing all authority from parents, and ensuring the child's autonomy. But since you don't, the idea is completely absurd to me.
The idea of something between 'pure libertarianism' and 'status quo' is absurd to you?
If parents have no authority over their children, than an adult has even less authority over another unrelated adult.
A having authority over Bs personal decisions is not the same thing as A having authority over B's authority over C. A parent has every right to forbid their child from making unreasonable demands of their younger sibling.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
6d ago
It is a bit odd how worried people are about credentials.
"Remember, a lone amateur built the Ark. A whole team of professionals built the Titanic."
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
6d ago
It's also performative because most of these ladies are not actually going to swear off men, because they like sex, attention, and validation. Political lesbianism and lesbian separatism largely failed as a movement because women found out that they can't just decide to be not attracted to men, any more than men can just stop wanting women.
This is exactly the same as the MGTOW movement, who are just as much a gang of performative blowhards who'd crawl over broken glass to actually score, but talk a big game online about how they don't need no woman. They don't care. They so don't care. Can you see how loudly and obnoxiously and convincingly they are not caring?
"No one will ever win the battle of the sexes, because there's too much fraternising with the enemy."
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
Not directly, but usually parents go through suffering of their own when something bad happens to their children.
That's not the same thing.
And we give it to parents because we expect them to make the decision the child would have, if they were mature.
But often they don't make the same decision their child would have if mature. Many parents attempt to override their child's decisions even after their child is mature.
So in a case like this, if the parents managed to convince the child that this treatment will help, would you say the state has no right to intervene?
No, I think that clears the higher bar.
On the other hand, if a child, upon finding out that meat is made out of dead animals, desires to adopt a plant-only diet, and their parents approve, I would not override their decision, even though many non-Adventist-influenced experts doubt that it is wise.
personally I'd say they have that authority by default, and you need a strong positive argument if you want to take it away.
They said the same thing about kings once....
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted ... that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it....
As above, so below.
libertarian utopia where parents decide for themselves
But they aren't deciding for themselves! They are deciding for another person! In the purest form of libertarianism, the child would decide everything for themselves.
I am not advocating for pure libertarianism, but that is what I mean by 'your children aren't your property.' The base state isn't parents having absolute power over their children, it's them having no authority whatsoever. All power accorded to parents is a creation of society.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
6d ago
Generally we allow people to refuse treatment, even if that will have negative consequences for them.
When an adult refuses medical care for themselves, the negative consequences fall on the person making the decision. When an adult refuses medical care for a child, the adult does not experience those consequences.
We also generally recognize children lack the maturity to make long-term decisions, so we grant the power to make medical decisions about them to their parents (or whoever has custody of them).
And there are many examples of that going wrong, usually from parents who think of their children as their property and refuse to distinguish between 'my child's long-term interest/coherent extrapolated volition' and 'my personal preferences/non-universal ideology'.
Even with adults, if someone is unconscious, it's their next of kin that generally make medical decisions for them, not the doctors. None of that implies owning another person as property.
Because the next of kin is expected to make the decision based on 'what the patient would decide if conscious' and not 'what the next of kin wants'.
Also how consistent are you with "rightness" overruling parental authority[?] If the evidence for pediatric transgender care is determined to be very poor, are you ok with a blanket ban on transgender care, even if the child, parents, and a bunch [of] their doctor[s] agree that it's right?
- Overruling parents in the case of 'parents and child agree; we think both are wrong' should be a higher bar to clear than 'parents disagree with child; we think child is right and parents are wrong.'
- The case for giving any authority to parents rests on the assumption that they are usually right, for a value of 'right' that can be falsified, i. e. not defined as right a priori by dint of their status as parents. In cases where parents are often wrong, I believe society currently gives them too much unchallenged authority, and there need to be more checks and balances.
- What do you mean by 'the evidence for paediatric transgender care is determined to be very poor'? A literal reading would be 'the evidence seems to support it, but we have low confidence in that assertion.' akin to the evidence for ivermectin vs. COVID-19, or aducanumab vs. Alzheimer's disease. In that case, where we cannot predict long-term effects, we should do what results in the least immediate suffering. If you meant 'the evidence shows with strong confidence that it is harmful', akin to the evidence regarding 31 g of aspirin vs. the 1918 influenza, then I could be convinced to support a moratorium until experiments on adults show that they have found a less harmful method of changing genders.
- 'Blocking transgender care that is desired by a minor patient and approved by both parents and doctors' is not the mirror image of 'allowing transgender care that is desired by a minor patient and approved by doctors but opposed by the patient's parents'; the mirror image of that is 'blocking transgender care that is desired by the parent(s) but opposed by the patient and the doctors.' e. g. the often raised spectre of the blue-hair-and-pronouns parent attempting to transition their cisgender child in order to gain the status of 'ally to the trans community'. (I am not sure whether this has ever happened, but it would certainly justify overruling the parent's wishes, even in a society in which gender transition is instant, perfect, side-effect-free, and reversible.)
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
7d ago
· Edited 6d ago
The groomer most likely believes that having sex with the child is mutually beneficial and while it serves his own interests, also serves the best interests of the child.
But he/she is wrong.
There is no royal road to geometry, and there is no substitute to actually deciding who is right and who is wrong in each individual case.
(Sometimes, we can establish heuristics where >99.999% of cases following a given pattern have a common answer; e. g. "Anyone advocating for paedophilia is wrong." However, the heuristic "If a parent disagrees with their child, the parent is right and the child is wrong." does not reach anywhere near five nines.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
7d ago
on what grounds you wish to overrule parental authority
On the grounds that a child or adolescent is not the property of their parents, because they are a human being, and a human being cannot be the property of another human being (Grant v. Lee, 1865).
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
7d ago
we should not let these kind of doctors make decisions about children, that go against the wishes of parents.
What if the parents are wrong?
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
7d ago
It is impossible for a [natal-anatomical] man to give birth.
Impossible with today's medical technology. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
7d ago
I'm just saying that 'we shouldn't try to change this because it's natural' proves too much.
The category is 'we want P, nature imposes Β¬P, we figure out how to change Β¬P to P.'.
When we make distinctions between 'nature wants half of our children to die, we want it to be rare for a parent to bury a child' and 'nature wants breast-feeding to be exclusive to women, we want men to have the option', we are merely haggling over the price.
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
8d ago
following the norms of nature
Would these be the same 'norms of nature' that killed 40-50% of all pre-20th century children before their fifth birthday?
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
8d ago
putting penises in women only spaces ... is about the most unpopular policy....
What if one frames it as "Outside the bedroom or the doctor's office, other peoples' genitals are none of your business, and should not be taken as an input to whether $PERSON is allowed to $VERB_PHRASE."?
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
10d ago
Or they could park further away than their occupants are willing/able to walk....
Celestial-body-NOS
π¦ All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
13d ago
They gave it to Henry bloody Kissinger of all people!
It's not 'how oppressed they've been', per se, so much as 'how likely are they to be oppressed in the future'.
The former is largely relevant as evidence of the latter.
This would be reasonable if there were a danger, supported by historical precedent, of your ethnic group, if a minority in every country, being declared unwelcome in your country of residence, denied admission to other countries, and then targeted for mass murder. (I don't know what ethnicity you are, so I cannot say for certain that that is not the case. If it is, than your group would also be justified in wanting its own country in which it is the majority. 'White people', on the other hand, do not fit this criterion; if that were to change, then you would have an argument for wanting to live in a white-majority country.)
More options
Context Copy link