Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
No bio...
User ID: 290
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2hr ago
I'm a bit surprised that foreign oligarchs and billionaires haven't set up a scheme to flood those districts with ex-pats who are available for jury duty.
That would require changing federal law, as currently, non-citizens are ineligible.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
8hr ago
Not necessary to it, although I did notice, and it adds another level to it....
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
8hr ago
· Edited 2hr ago
I dislike the continual minimizing/maximizing of windows and the break in flow of thought
I forgot that not everyone here is using a desktop browser. Would footnotes¹ be a better alternative?
linking to a website instead of simply explaining in words what it is you yourself have intended in your post.
OK, I will try to explain it in words. "wow. very revenge plot. which caskete choose? argument much clever." is a description of the plot of The Merchant of Venice in the dialect associated with the 'doge' meme, for which Elon Musk has a particular fondness.
The Merchant of Venice is a play by William Shakespeare, containing the line "Thou calledst me dog before thou hadst a cause. But since I am a dog, beware my fangs.", meaning that Shylock was treated as villainous before he had done anything questionable, and therefore was not incentivised to be forgiving. (Act III, scene 3.) I was alluding to that line in the first part of my comment, in that Mr Musk was also treated as deplorable by the chattering classes prior to having thrown in his lot with the Trump campaign²; the spelling of 'doge' and 'fange' was an allusion to the same meme.
¹Like these.
²A comparison can also be made to the Dazexiang Uprising in late-3rd-century China, in which two officials realised three things:
-
The then-ruling dynasty imposed the death penalty for being late.
-
The then-ruling dynasty imposed the death penalty for rebellion.
-
The roads being impassable due to rain, they had no chance of arriving on time.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
23hr ago
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
... because the other side called him a doge before they had a cause; if he is a doge, beware his fanges. (wow. very revenge plot. which caskete choose? argument much clever.)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
I wonder how many of them ever un-ironically used that line about those accustomed to privilege perceiving equality as oppression....
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
· Edited 23hr ago
Rotherham
- 80% is not, by any stretch of the definition, a 'minority'.
- Per the article you quoted, the gangs preyed on many children of South Asian extraction.
- Many of the people who ignored the problem were white; they did not take measures against it because (3a.): the victims were largely working-class, (3b.): they didn't want it to be seen that there had been a problem (a common failure mode, even when everyone involved is the same ethnicity), and (3c.): they feared that a mostly-white police force arresting mostly-South-Asian criminals would spark a backlash.
The last, I believe, comes from an ideology which seems to approach the notion that the relevant subject of moral enquiry is racially-defined subsets of humanity, that individual human beings are rightfully thought of as cells within the racial super-organism, and that the 'white' super-organism has wronged the other super-organisms and is obligated to atone for its sins; the last point being the largest difference between them and the ideology which killed 6,000,000 people who had done nothing to provoke so much as a sharp glance, thus leading to the necessity of a Jewish State.
The antidote to this ideology is not to say "Ackchyually, the white super-organism has never done anything wrong and is entitled to its demands.", but to reject the entire framing of races being more fundamental than individual human beings. This brings us closer to a world in which the principle of 'states should not be defined by ethnicity' can be applied without exception, and the State of Israel can extend citizenship without regard to ethnicity. Giving more ethnic groups the entitlement to stay the majority in "their" countries moves us further away from that world.
the ethnic cleansing that befalls Christians in so many Muslim-dominated countries
The perpetrators and victims in this case are usually either the same ethnic group, or groups more closely related to each other than to Northwest Europeans.
The persecutions are often motivated on religious grounds; they ask not so much 'is Fulan al-Fulani white or brown' as 'is he a Christian or a Muslim', and if the latter, 'what kind of Muslim'; they often show no less vitriol towards the 'wrong kind' of Muslims than towards Christians.
the unofficial anti-white quotas that are now present at every level in the UK and hold back many talented white men because they have the wrong skin colour
... caused by the same 'races-over-individuals' ideology mentioned above.
From now on, anyone who wants my support for anything has to earn it. You want my support for a feminist initiative? Great, let’s talk about what you can do to solve the problems I think men have. You want my support for an ethnostate for Jews? Fair, let’s talk about what you’re going to do for the native British. And I’m far from alone in this.
Which is at the root of many of the issues plaguing us today; people asking "What can I get out of this?" rather than "What is the right thing to do?".
However, we can talk about 'what you’re going to do for the native British'. (I'm not sure what you mean by 'native British'; sensu strictissimu, it would only include Welsh, Scottish, and Ulster Irish people; sensu latissimu, it would include anyone born in the United Kingdom to a British citizen or permanent resident. I will assume we are setting the cut-off in 1491, thus including the aforementioned Celtic peoples, plus the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Norman peoples arriving between the 5th and 12th centuries.)
If Omega-the-super-intelligent-computer-with-a-100.00%-track-record-of-being-right were to predict that, if ethnically British people become a minority in Britain, they will be expelled by the whatever ethnic group becomes the majority, regularly driven from whatever countries they have lived in for 2,000 years, and ultimately targetted for industrialised mass murder, then I would concede that you are justified in wanting to maintain your current majority status. (Note that ethnic British in Britain and Jews in Israel both constitute approximately three-quarters of the population.)
Furthermore, if Omega-tsicwa100ptrobr were to predict that there will be a backslash against racism, ethnonationalism, and nativism in the United States, that, from ~2040 onward, the United States will not privilege any ethnic group over any other, and will admit anyone who might plausibly be in danger of ethnic/religious violence in their current country of residence, disirregardless of any of the usual reasons for limiting immigration, and that opposition to these policies will not rise above the lizardman constant at any time in the next 10,000 years, then I would be more sympathetic to a secular, ethnically-neutral, union of Israel and Palestine, admitting any of the descendants of the Arabs who fled in 1948 on the condition that they respect the right of their Jewish neighbours to live peaceably as equals.
Otherwise every man who ever bought his child an ice cream instead of buying mosquito nets is racist.
No, there is a difference between favouring one's immediate relatives and favouring one's own ethnic group. If two people can trace each generation of their lineage back to a common ancestor, and that ancestor is recent enough that, as I linked to previously, the ninth-century Catholic Church would have considered a marriage between them to be incestuous, then one of them favouring the other over a random stranger becomes more justifiable in your example, and, in cases such as favouring someone for employment, is 'nepotism' rather than 'racism'.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
True; we should have re-negotiated, changing '10-15 years' to 'until the signatories unanimously agree to lift the restrictions, which won't happen as long as you keep supporting Palestinian claims on Tel Aviv.'
My ruling on that particular case would have been something along the lines of "Before the Civil Rights Act, Defendant explicitly excluded black people from the higher-paid jobs. Therefore, the Court can conclude that Defendant harbours animus toward black people. Defendant did not require white people to pass any kind of test before hiring them. Therefore, by revealed preference, Defendant had no objection to a low-scoring white person holding higher paid jobs. Therefore, Defendant's imposition of the testing requirement, on the same day that the Civil Rights Act took effect and Defendant could no longer exclude people on the explicit grounds of skin colour, indicates that,
- Defendant is attempting to keep black people sub-ordinate to white people (the exact thing Congress just outlawed), and
- Defendant apparently thinks that they can pee on Uncle Sam's leg and tell him it's raining."
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
Do you genuinely believe that businesses do not have a preference for intelligent employees over non-intelligent employees?
No, I was attempting to present the strongest possible case for disparate-impact laws. Thus, in the situation I described, the standard wasn't 'must be more mentally capable than McNamara's 100,000' so much as 'must have 'professional-looking' (i. e. white) hairstyle' or 'must be able to lift 50 pounds' for a desk job that won't involve lifting anything heavier than a full cup of coffee.
I can only think of two reasons why someone might come to that conclusion, neither of which I would consider even close to reasonable.
The first is if one values 'costs and benefits to someone of the same ethnicity as me' more highly than 'costs and benefits to someone of a different ethnic group'. This covers pretty much all of what 'racism' meant before the 'prejudice-plus-power' gerrymandering. It tends to end badly.
The second is if one has an understanding of history and current events that, to put it charitably, is very different from what I understand to be the case. The only examples I know of in which white people qua white people were, or even may have been, persecuted are:
- Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia, formerly Southern Rhodesia)
- South Africa (questionable to what extent it is racially motivated, but I will concede the point for the sake of argument)
- Haiti, following the overthrow of the slavers.
All of these occurred in countries which had, until immediately before-hand, been governed under a system in which black people were oppressed, the people doing the oppression were white, they attempted to justify the oppression using a world-view in which one's ethnicity is more relevant than one's character as an individual, and there were few if any white people questioning the system and advocating for racial equality. This was not conducive to making the distinction between 'this white person who personally wronged me' and 'this person who didn't technically do anything to me, but shares skin colour with the people who did.'
Anti-Semitic persecutions, however, were generally not preceded by any action by Jewish people other than 'existing while not being exactly like us', and were perpetrated under circumstances which had very little else in common.
I am willing to listen if you can offer any examples of white people who were minding their own business, not harming anyone, and were persecuted for being white; or if you can describe a 'way of drawing the cost-benefit differently' that does not fall into either of these two categories.
At this time, I would like to steelman disparate-impact legislation.
Some people decide that they don't want to hire (or sell to, or admit to their schools) black people (or women or Chinese people or Irish people...), but are forbidden by law from having such a policy. They then impose a standard that many white people can meet, few black people can meet, and that they most likely wouldn't give a rat's arse about if it were un-correlated with race, and in some cases didn't give a rat's arse about when they were allowed to discriminate openly. (Sometimes they go further, and enforce a zero-tolerance standard on black people while ignoring violations by white people.) The government than comes in and says "That sounds like a whites-only sign with extra steps; I thought we had made it perfectly clear that you are not allowed to do that! What part of 'do not discriminate on the basis of race' did you not understand?"
Let’s suppose that Jews do indeed have the greatest past history of genocide, and that this makes them the most liable to be genocided again, and that as a consequence they ought to be first in line for a homeland. I can follow this line of thinking. What I fail to see is why any white person would be persuaded to abstain from forming their own homeland.
Because maintaining an ethnostate involves discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, which has major costs, almost always greater than the benefits (if one is primarily concerned with the well-being of individual humans.) In the case of Israel, past events create a sufficient threat that the cost-benefit calculation passes the zero-line (the MS St. Louis passengers et al. being the factor pushing it over the top); white people do not face any threat great enough to outweigh the reasons for avoiding ethnostates in general.
Ideally, there wouldn't be any countries deciding citizenship based on ethnicity; however, given both past events and current attitudes towards ethnicity and immigration, the N deliberate N maintenance N of N a N Jewish N majority N in N at N least N one N state N is, N at N least N at N this N time, N an N un-fortunate N necessity N for N the N well-being N of N individual N Jewish N people, N in N much N the N same N way N as N poking N someone N with N a N pointy N bit N of N metal N is, N given N our N current N medical N technology, N an N unfortunate N necessity N for N telling N the N immune N system N 'watch N out N for N this N specific N microbe'.
(The 'N's stand for "Not to be taken out of context".)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d ago
political affiliation is not a protected class
A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it. If you try to address an idea, your success depends on how good the idea is; if you try to silence it, your success depends on how powerful you are and how many pitchforks and torches you can provide on short notice.
The principle “usually, it is not justifiable to take coercive measures to keep certain ethnicities in the majority” has a big exclusion for “unless it prevents genocide”.
The exception is more 'unless a group has been repeatedly been persecuted by many other groups, to a degree greatly above background, and given no refuge when they tried to escape a mad-man bent on their extermination.'
Just a cursory look through the annals of history shows that every group which lacks dominance over a territory risks genocide, and that these happen at mostly unpredictable times. Therefore, it is justifiable to take coercive measures to keep an ethnic group in the majority of some territory (or subsection thereof) to prevent its genocide, as this is the best way to protect against genocide.
But this is not an argument for why other groups should not get a homeland. Shouldn’t our interest be in reducing genocides down to 0%?
Such a plan would be very destructive to human freedom and well-being; furthermore, even if it had been accomplished fifty years ago and every ethnic group had their own country, the division between ethnicities is not a constant throughout history.
Therefore, to prevent genocides from occurring, the best method is to
- establish a principle that members of ethnic minorities ought to be treated as equals, and that the relevant subject of moral/ethical concern is not 'a group of people defined by distant¹ blood-relation' but 'an individual human being', and
- establish that if an individual is at risk of being murdered by the country they live in because their neighbours have decided that their ethnic group are undeserving of life, other countries ought to let them in.
Once this has been accomplished, and the ideas that 'an individual is less worthy of concern because they are of a different ethnicity' or 'we have the right to send an individual back to a country where they will be murdered rather than risk them causing some inconvenience² to us' are taken no more seriously anywhere among the Nations than the idea that '2.00 + 2.00 = 5.00', then we can discuss whether the State of Israel is justified in limiting the number of Arab citizens to less than the number of Jewish citizens.
¹'Distant' meaning 'far enough apart that even the Medieval Church wouldn't object to them marrying.'
²Such as 'they're poor enough that they might cost us money in social support', 'letting in 10,000 of them might contain one or two people who might wish us harm³', or 'we can't distinguish which ones are in actual danger, so avoiding type II errors (deporting someone who will then be murdered) will cause type I errors (some people might move here for economic opportunity, even if we have told them not to!).
³During the interbellum period, some Unitedstatesian opinionists opposed the admission of Jewish refugees on the grounds that Germany might hide saboteurs among them.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d ago
The biggest flaw in the JCPOA was that the restrictions on uranium enrichment, intended to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, expired at T+10-15 years, thus potentially allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear arsenal 'later' rather than 'never'.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d ago
I don’t think it follows that other groups should be prevented from such a state.
That follows from the principle of "Ethnonationalism Considered Harmful" leading to the notion that, usually, it is not justifiable to take coercive measures to keep certain ethnicities in the majority.
The list of genocides in history is long and the subjects are totally random.
Not totally random. Some groups have been dis-proportionally targeted; this pattern becomes more visible with a data-set that includes sub-genocidal persecution.
It’s reasonable, then, for every group to desire a clear majority territory in order to decrease their risk of being genocided.
No, because not every group has the same risk.
It’s unreasonable to say, “because this group has already been subject to genocide, they should have an eternal homeland”
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "Because this group has been subjected repeatedly to genocidal and lesser persecutions, and were turned away and sent to their deaths when they tried to flee the most recent attempt, they should have a homeland as long as there is widespread animus against them and government control over immigration."
If the passengers on the MS St. Louis, and all the other Jewish people fleeing the Nazis, had been allowed into America, there would have been a lot less impetus for the formation of a Jewish State.
If all other countries had open borders, showed no sign of any desire to change this, and that situation continued for several decades, it would be reasonable to urge Israel to follow suit.
(Often cast is the accusation of wanting 'open borders for every country except Israel'. I think a better description, at least of those whose political opinions reside on Level 1, would be open borders for every country, with Israel bringing up the tail end of the process. [Those on Level 3, on the other hand, {if their social circle consists of the kind of people in the Respectable Media} will oppose immigration enforcement in the U. S. because their friends do, support Israeli policies because their friends do, and give no more regard to resolving any apparent contradiction in their ideas than they would give to ensuring that their ideas are expressed in sentences ending in words with an odd number of letters. {The same applies to people whose social circle consists of college radicals yelling "From the river to the sea" without any knowledge of the bodies of water to which that slogan refers.}])
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d ago
do you really think there’s going to be another Holocaust? ... Jews will be safe in the west for the foreseeable future ....
In 1900, would anyone have thought the Shoah would have been started by Germany?
If you brought someone forward from that era, told them that there would be a persecution and mass murder of Jews on an un-precedented scale, and asked them to guess what country it would come from, I suspect most people' first guess would be Russia, possibly followed by France.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d ago
how oppressed they’ve been
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.
I am happy to support the Jewish ethnic homeland exactly to the extent that they support mine
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.)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d 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
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
2d 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 0.4–0.7 μm albedo < 0.01 is white 0.4–0.7 μm 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.
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
🟦 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
🟦 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.
This proves too much¹; your argument could be adapted to defend either cancel culture or Jim Crow laws!
or
Your argument also begs the question² of whether transitioning is a bad decision; furthermore, even if it were, if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society, and protects you from somebody else deciding that some aspect of your life-style is a 'bad decision' that they are entitled to assault people over. (You still Kant dismiss univeralisability.)
¹Proving too much: an argument which, if valid, would also prove something known to be false; elaborated here.
²In its older sense of 'a proof of P that assumes P'.
More options
Context Copy link