@Crowstep's banner p

Crowstep


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 08:45:31 UTC

				

User ID: 832

Crowstep


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 08:45:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 832

This is the best review I've seen of Adolescence.

It's culture war angle is really two-fold. Firstly, the idea that middle class native British boys from nice families end up stabbing their classmates, whereas in reality it's invariably second generation African boys (I mean, the show has a scene with a white boy mugging a black boy for his lunch money, come on!).

The social problems Starmer wishes to confront do exist, just not in a way that makes audiences feel comfortable. In the week that Adolescence was being watched by millions, a school in Elm Park on the London/Essex border held a party which was overrun by knife-wielding teenagers. That was close to where a real teenage girl was murdered by two real teenage boys in 2019. You’ll notice that none of the perpetrators resemble the star of Adolescence, because teenage knife crime in Britain is predominately a problem with young black men. This is testified by the fact that, according to Graham, who both wrote as well as acted, the show was inspired by the fatal stabbing of Elianne Andam by Hassan Sentamu, as well as other real-life cases. These are unpalatable realities, and audiences for drama don’t like them.

So too with Andrew Tate:

Even the baleful influence of Andrew Tate and ‘toxic misogyny’ is, again, disproportionately a problem among minorities, as Rakib Ehsan pointed out, and ‘there are several issues that may make young black men more likely to be drawn to Tate’s rantings’, the obvious one being fatherlessness: ‘Young black males are a group disproportionately impacted… This means young black men are the least likely group of young men to have a positive male role model living with them at home – a world away from Jamie’s nuclear family, as depicted in Adolescence, in which the boy is “radicalised” by online influencers.’

The second is that this could be caused by something called 'the manosphere':

Instead they’ve found new moral evils to focus on in the form of the manosphere or online hate, and the agents of the state even sympathetically view Jamie as subject to forces outside of his control. Misogyny is part of the pyramid of harm, that strangely gormless worldview in which tiny infringements of social codes are linked to far more serious problems (edgy banter at work > > > something something > > > the Holocaust). The boy’s father doesn’t have female friends and sometimes loses his temper; his son murdered a girl. Can’t you see the link there, between behaviour typical of perhaps 50-90 per cent of men and one characteristic of 0.001 per cent?

One reason that society now feels so uncomfortable with young men is because social norms have moved to a more feminine centre, focussed on empathy and harm-prevention, one major cause of the Great Awokening. It is a way of seeing the world, and of organising human relationships, which many males indeed find difficult to negotiate, but contrary to the fears about men suffering from smartphone use, the data shows that social media is disproportionately harming girls, ‘and is more likely to cause depression than radicalisation.’

Ed West concludes that the real reason for this kind of moral panic isn't that middle class British boys will become misogynists and murder their classmates. It's that those same boys are rejecting progressive politics.

In most civilized countries, "if you deport me I will face a lengthy prison sentence without a court trial which would vaguely meet Western standards" would be reason enough to grant asylum.

You may have noticed that the asylum system is broken in all of these countries, with millions of illegal immigrants cynically using it as a get out of jail free card that allows them to sneak into the first world and stay there indefinitely.

The only countries that don't have these issues (Australia, Denmark, Japan come to mind) grant approximately zero asylum claims.

What medium are you looking for? TV series? Books?

Just to clarify, what do you think the average Ashkenazi IQ is? It's not really possible to have this conversation unless we're on the same page with that.

If you have evidence that universities are unfairly prioritising Jews, then present it. Insinuation isn't enough.

Meanwhile, we have actual concrete evidence and explicit admission by universities that they were favouring Africans and Latinos while penalising Asians (Euros are a wash, from what I recall). Asians were appearing less than their GPAs would suggest they should, while blacks and hispanics were appearing more than their GPAs suggested they should. Jews being particularly prevelant at some universities isn't shocking, because they are literally the most intelligent ethnic group on the planet.

Well no, you're well aware that they benefit from race discrimination in their favour.

You're also well aware that Jews are classified along with all other European ethnic groups as white. All that's happening is that the places being allocated to white students are being allocated to the most intelligent ones. This doesn't bother most people because most people don't hate Jews.

How did the people who founded these institutions get kicked out of them within a single generation?

They didn't get kicked out, they got outcompeted. The average European IQ is 100, the average Ashkenazi IQ is 114. In an institution that selects for IQ people, you shouldn't expect representation to match the census, any more than you should expect a room full of physicists to be 50% female.

The idea that a Spanish surname might disqualify someone from being American is kinda funny when the Americas looked like this in 1800

The Germans and French are ethnic groups. Americans are not. You could argue that Araujo isn't Anglo-American, but then neither are African Americans and they've been there since the beginning too.

Do any of these progressives believe in God or go to church?

Because I'd say that's the absolute bare minimum. Someone who doesn't believe in God isn't a Christian, and someone who doesn't go to church isn't a practicing Christian.

Christian isn't a synonym for 'virtuous' or 'progressive'. It's a religion.

For comedy films, I don't think you can top the 2000s. The 80s and 90s were pretty funny, but nothing can beat Anchorman for mass market comedic appeal. And then in the 2010s comedies started to get self-aware and subversive in line with your thesis.

Yeah I know, that's why I put it in scare quotes.

The Irish and the Lithuanians and the Jews were definitely not white when they first got off the boats

This meme really needs to die. Americans hundreds of years absolutely recognised that non-English European ethnic groups were in fact, also European. They weren't morons. The Anglo-American majority may have had negative opinions about some European immigrant groups at first, but that's very different from making the argument that Lithuanians were negros or something. There were literally Irishmen on the Mayflower!

'White' identity came about because the European groups who had previously thought of themselves as English, Germans, Jews etc united around a common conflict the Indians.

'Latinos' may well be considered white (i.e. European) because they are either overwhelming Spanish or partly Spanish. And Spain is in Europe.

Noah Smith has written about this. Basically, instead of looking at global warming as an engineering problem to be solved, the environmentalist left took it on as a moral crusade, and as a justification for left-wing policies in general.

Then due to negative polarisation, right-wingers moved to opposing it (owning the libs, basically).

Probably the best way to get your dad to buy an electric car would be to talk about how based Elon Musk (and therefore Tesla) is.

Aside from the difficulty of squaring 'menial labour' with flying cars and personal holodecks (do I wear a mech suit while stacking shelves or something?), I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat.

Okay so the average GDP per capita in the EU is $40,000 today. In exchange for being ruled over by a small group of Africans who earn more than us and limit our movement and freedoms, the UK can quadruple its GDP per capita to say, $160,000? (the real life gap between SA and Nigeria) Honestly it sounds like a pretty good deal. British people get to live amongst ourselves, and with our newfound wealth we can just build strong communities in the limited parts of the country we're allowed to live in.

Although I'll be honest, this is a tricky hypothetical because it requires me to change too much to really make it analogous. Like, do Europeans in this hypothetical world commit tons of crime and corruption while the Africans are smarter, more law-abiding, more organised and better able to run things? Are the real life IQ differences flipped or are you just making one group smarter or dumber?

In this thought experiment, how do you square 'unprecedented GDP growth' with 'ten bucks per hour'? Cost disease still exists even if all the high-paying jobs are taken by the negro overlords (although if we're trying to be realistic, at least make them Chinese or something).

As a white guy, you'll probably be forced to live in a designated area an hour outside a major city

You mean like a suburb? You make it sounds as if commuting an hour by bus is some god-awful fate rather than a normal commute in countries with public transport.

even going to work will require you to present proof that you actually have a job

Pretty easy.

You will be barred from most public accommodations, and will have to get official permission before traveling anywhere outside your home

These are the only two that genuinely sound bad.

Your own political power is nonexistent, and the government doesn't even pretend that you have anything resembling civil rights

For most individuals in democracies, they have no political power. Depending on what you mean by civil rights, that could also be said to be true.

In this case, in South Africa it would be the Khoisan, not the Bantus who invaded later than the Dutch even.

The Bantus were in Eastern South Africa (the bit where most of the modern population live) in 500 AD, the first Boers arrived in the 1650s. They were there for a good thousand years before the Dutch turned up. The Khoisan (or rather, their partial descendents the Coloreds) are still there in the West.

All of them had uniforms on, pure black hoodies, half of them with North Face logos from what I can tell.

I can't tell whether I'm annoyed that all teenage boys wear black, or just jealous that fashion wasn't so easy when I was a lad.

Presumably citizens have an easier time...

Not in the UK, not really. Illegal immigrants who claim asylum (i.e. who get caught) get free accommodation, healthcare, spending money and the right to take any job after one year of their 'claim being processed' (rejections can be appealed almost indefinitely). Non-citizens can vote if they are Commonwealth citizens (about 1.8 billion people globally). Illegal immigrants can study at our universities, in some cases for free. If they are granted asylum, they get all the rights of citizens, including the ability to import their relatives. Their children can go to school here.

The government is currently bragging about deporting 19,000 illegal immigrants, in a year where more than 100,000 came across from France in boats.

There are countries with functional immigration systems, but they are few and far between. The Social Democrats in Denmark have realised that left wing politics is actually pretty popular if you don't allow foreign criminals to free-ride.

For the people that believe transwomen are men, they can infer that too.

Surely by using the term 'transwoman' you're alrady ceding the field to the transactivists? The term implies that the person is a) in some way a woman and b) that it is possible for a human to transition between the sexes.

My preferred term is 'man in a dress'*, which may not involve any emotional cosseting of the individuals involved, but at least is completely unambiguous as to what we are actually talking about.

  • A term which I was recently surprised to hear my relatively right-on sister use. Apparently our family's tendency to speak frankly overpowered any political considerations.

The moral implications of putting low-skilled people out of work

You can't hold back economic forces on your own. If a job is automatable, it will eventually be automated. in any case, automation is just a means to make human workers more productive. Which is what economic growth is, fundamentally.

In the long term, the way to make poor people richer is by increasing worker productivity in the countries those poor people live in, and therefore GDP per capita. Poor people in rich countries are wealthier than average people in poor countries because the rich countries have higher worker productivity, which benefits the poorest workers through cost disease and cheaper goods/services.

I honestly think you have a moral duty to automate those jobs. The benefits will outweigh the costs, even if said benefits are diffuse and the costs are concentrated.

It's not very efficient. We spend more than the OECD average, and we get fewer doctors, fewer nurses and fewer hospital beds for it. The waiting times are infamously long, and productivity is still worse than it was pre-COVID. Honestly, it might work better with more administrators if that means that GPs don't need to spend time writing actual paper letters to refer their patients to specialists, and similar kinds of bureaucratic nonsense.

Since the descendents of these unions became the modern ashkenazim, that means it's a case of Romans (Roman women, specifically) leaving the Roman demos, rather than Jews joining it. If the Jews had integrated in, then their descendents wouldn't be Jews today.

Isn't there a time limit on DOGE? I guess for Noah's hypothesis to be true, there would need to be a plan to set up a Federalist Society-type body within the civil service after DOGE has finished up.

I guess we'll need to see what happens later on to test it. It wouldn't shock me to see JD Vance go on a spree of political appointing over the next few years to put these conservative civil servants in place, but right now it all looks a bit too chaotic to be that well planned.

My understanding is that, although the people's of Europe were divided by religion, they were still WEIRD in the modern sense. They were fighting for their own universalist religions, not for their clans. They were wars of ideas, rather than of peoples.