FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
I actually don't think any of the tactics that people use to shut down free speech these days come anywhere close to being that bad.
Killing people who say things you don't like is a tactic that people use to shut down free speech these days.
...Come to think of it, there were significant efforts to "destroy the printing press" of people whose speech was disfavored as well. Deplatforming, IDing as a "hate group" and debanking... is there a meaningful distinction you're pointing to here?
That ruleset is fantastic only if it is truly the case that God or the moral arc of history is on your side, since you can guarantee that that ruleset will win out.
It's also fantastic if you don't believe rulesets exist in any meaningful way. That is, "ruleset" implies and assumes that good outcomes can arrive by some mechanistic process outside one's own direct control, that one can meaningfully win not only through enforcing one's own will, but by "the rules" declaring one a winner, and that this will be respected by all parties involved.
"I win and you lose" is the default of the ingroup fighting the outgroup, always has been and always will be, because that's how human minds work. If you have sufficient cohesion that I (or we) covers a supermajority of the population, then you can prop a dinky NASCAR-commemorative-china ruleset on top and pretend it's running the show. Then the level of cohesion drops and the china set totters off and hits the concrete floor and shatters into a million irreparable pieces.
None of this is about rules. Rules are not going to solve any of these problems.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
Fascism - No, Fascism is distinctly trying to return to pre-Christian Germanic pagan morality
But it absolutely and very explicitly emerged from Christian society, by people who were in all likelihood influenced in their core by Christian ideology. If "distinctly trying" to get somewhere outside the Christian frame is good enough to separate an ideology from Christianity, then Communism, Libertarianism, Wokeism and probably Republicanism (depending on definition) should likewise be recognized as distinct intellectual movements.
My view is that Progressivism as an ideology is the source of Communism, Fascism, Libertarianism, anti-fascism and wokeism. All of these start with the assumption that God does not exist and Christianity is, at best, an irrelevant distraction from the obvious work of reorganizing human society to better meet human ends.
Either everything that emerges later is just an offshoot of what came before, in which case all western ideologies are Christian and Christianity itself is just variant Paganism, making the argument fully general, or else new ideologies are possible, in which case Progressivism and its offshoots are markedly distinct from the Christianity they emerged from and specifically rejected.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
Suppose there are a hundred people from a variety of backgrounds. Which is better:
- fifty people randomly selected don't get to speak
- the largest common-background group gets to pick twenty people who don't get to speak
- twenty people get to each pick a person who doesn't get to speak, and those silenced in this way each get to pick one other person who doesn't get to speak?
A guy in my small group recommended Biblical Monsters, which is both short and quite surprising to me in its excellence, and is one of the better first-contact stories I've ever read.
What proportion of the "highly educated" population is "highly educated" in the ways actually needed to run our society? Why is this system specifically necessary to educate them?
The salient characteristic of "wokeness" that right-wingers had a legitimate case against - the thing that needed, needs, to be wiped out - is cancel culture.
Then someone should probably have figured out a way to wipe it out. But they haven't, and the best defense available depends entirely on mirroring its tactics. There simply is not support for any other form of response, and people are never, ever going to accept "heads we cancel you, tails you tolerate us" as a stable equilibrium. And yet, in values-incoherent environments, that is precisely the deal on offer from all sides.
1990s-style maximal-free-speech norms were an unsustainable confluence of one-off factors, and they are gone now and are not going to come back. They have no constituency, and Free Speech ideology itself is variously either wildly unpopular or wildly hypocritical (CP? Revenge Porn? Malicious code? Copyright? Deepfake porn? The N-word, or slurs generally?). People, speaking generally, do not actually want Free Speech. They want "Free Speech" for speech within a standard deviation of what they consider good and normal, and speech outside that island of tolerance they do not want to see or to know about or for it to exist at all. This is all they have ever wanted or ever will want, and impressions to the contrary are artifacts of large-scale, coordinated, and evidently unsustainable lies. One of the most popular lies you're cutting across in your comment: "you shouldn't censor, because if you violate the taboo on censorship then others will turn around and censor you." But this only makes sense if they actually will turn around and censor you; if "free speech" goes dormant when you censor, it can either stay dormant forever, prove the maxim correct and render free speech to the past-tense, or it can wake up, at which point the argument is falsified and your initial censorship was the correct choice after all. Neither horn of the dilemma results in durable free-speech norms; the argument was never anything more than a feel-good deepity.
It's the equivalent of non-murderous German nationalists, who do not deserve to automatically be tarred with the Nazi brush just because they pursue similar aims to those that the Nazis committed horrific crimes in pursuit of.
But they are tarred with the Nazi brush, observably, in the real world we actually live in. At some point, "deserve" is just a word you've made up to describe things that aren't going to happen. People notice this, and they stop playing along or pretending otherwise.
People want more good things and less bad things. Speech is a thing. The math is pretty simple.
I guess my read is that the incineration/large-scale shooting parts totally eclipse the parliamentary maneuvers parts. At that point, if some SJ partisan found a genie and wished for total control of congress and the judiciary, I don't think it would make a difference. The system's inertia would be gone, people are not going to listen to laws or judges they don't like any more, there's not even relative peace and plenty to keep people complacent. I'm quite sure there would be very radical things happening in whatever ad-hoc legislature the continuity of government machinery spat out, but I'm skeptical the outputs would matter much.
I'm skeptical that laws and courts, as such, actually mean that much. They are valuable because they are coordination mechanisms, but the point is the coordination, not the mechanism, and people observably can coordinate in a lot of other ways. In a serious disruption of the existing social order, I think all this stuff just goes away, as it's too misaligned with the interests of people acting in crisis mode, regardless of tribal affiliation.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
...is your argument that in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, SJ would be in trouble because non-SJ would have access to Constitutional Amendments and impeachment?
Another such victory and we are undone.
Further elaboration really deserves its own post, focused on a specific topic in depth rather than my usual scattershot bluster. Soon, hopefully.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
Obama condemned Ayers in his 2008 run and the connections between them are pretty sparse.
I went and looked, and it seems to me that the available evidence indicates that you are straightforwardly correct. My apologies, and thank you for the correction. @Iconochasm is correct that Obama launched his career in Ayers' living room and invited him to the opening of his presidential library, but that is not enough to sustain, as I've heard repeatedly over the years and believed, that Ayers was Obama's mentor, or to use, as I did here, Ayers as an example of a Maoist that Obama embraced.
It's hard to really do this without it turning into some point by point relitigation of individual things that read as tit for tat partisan nonsense. I'll put forward many of the politics around BLM and the Trump Tariff fiasco as the kinds of fruits I see populism yielding. I'm not very interested in going point for point on which side was worse or who's tit justified which tat.
You've written a bit more about your understanding and critique of populism in this thread:
It's not necessarily populism to criticize things like Chinese outsourcing, certainly it's not populism to get in the weeds on bank regulation. Populism is when complex topics are collapsed down to simple narratives about how things could be great if not for ${outgroup_schemes} and all we need to do is implement ${simple_fix} and that second order effects are made up by ${hated_outgroup} to prevent good policy.
...I do not think this is a very good or useful way to define populism. Democracy being what it is, those who make a career of amassing and wielding power and influence are always going to seek to secure popular support for their preferred policies, and collapsing those policies down into simple narratives about ingroup and outgroup is always going to be a highly effective way to secure such support.
Was the GWOT Iraq War populist? It seems to me that it must be, by your definition. Certainly it involved a great deal of collapsing complex policies into simple narratives about ingroups and outgroups, second-order effects blamed on hated outgroups, etc and so on.
But I would not agree that the GWOT was populist. Specific elites had the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein's government as explicit policy goals, as part of a broader strategy to reshape the politics of the middle east in a direction they thought preferable in the long-term. They then, with a great deal of organized deceit, seized on an acute crisis to collapse these policies into simple narratives of the sort you describe, the better to sell them to the public. To the extent that opposition arose, it arose much more from the grassroots and individual organization, rather than being driven by institutions and the social networks that inhabit them; to the extent that the anti-war movement enjoyed elite support, that support was far more fragmentary and arising from individual effort and organization than top-down institutional action.
The Iraq war was genuinely popular, at least for a time, but that popularity was secured by the specific machinations of specific leaders, notable among them being Colin Powell lying to the world about Iraq's WMD, backed in lockstep by the full might of the federal Bureaucracy, and even considerable portions of the entertainment and media industries. And in fact, this elite commitment to what turned out to be a straightforwardly disastrous set of policies was what planted the seeds for the populist backlash we see now: the rise of populist political insurgents like Ron Paul and the Tea party on the right, and the antiwar movement, Occupy Wall Street, Social Justice, Bernie Sanders/the Squad, and now actual communists on the left.
You say:
There is a base rate of bad governance and populism as an influence makes them worse and more frequent.
...But this appears to me to be straightforwardly untrue. Humans inevitably make mistakes, but it does not seem to me that there is a "base rate of bad governance". Specific policies are good or bad. Specific ideologies encourage specific bad or good policy choices. Elite rule, technocracy, whatever label we're applying to anti-populism, is supposed to deliver superior policy choices and thus superior outcomes, and if it doesn't actually do that, I think it is extremely important to be able to recognize that fact!
My understanding of Populism is essentially wisdom of crowds as opposed to relying on institutional knowledge production of Elite Rule/technocracy/rule-of-experts. Institutional knowledge production can be very powerful, but by its nature it is resistant to accountability, self-critique and self-correction, such that it can easily decay into serious tyranny. If elites homogenize around a bad set of ideas sufficiently to insulate themselves from all contrary evidence, critique or consequences, what alternative is there but Populism? Knowledge must be generated somehow if we are going to cooperate together.
I know republicans have accused democrats of being communists forever but they really aren't.
Democrats have not all or even mostly been Communists. The overwhelming majority of Communists in America have either been democrats, or have been allied with democrats, or have drawn support and political cover from Democrats, and that support and cover has been voluminous, both in the past and right down to the present day. Explicit campaigns to protect Communists have been part of the Democrat auto-hagiography for my entire life, and continue to be treated so long after the general principles those campaigns supposedly enshrined have been torn down and trampled out of existence. At some point, this ceases to be tolerance and becomes complicity. I believe the Democrats passed that point some time ago, and I do not believe that they have had or will have the capacity to meaningfully restrain the Communists they have nurtured and protected for so long.
If the Democrats never marginalized the DSA then how do you understand the current conflict in the democratic party? Why is the DSA primarying long standing members if they were there all along?
The Democrats treated Communists as outriders, as useful tools to be managed and exploited at arms-length. This is in notable contrast to how the Right has treated Nazis and White Supremacists, given what seems to me to be the evident moral equivalence of the two groups. We did not give the Nazis and WS types tenure in our institutions, we did not appoint them sinecures from the public purse to teach our young, we did not enshrine them as celebrity prophets or moral authorities or social critics. Angela Davis is pretty clearly morally culpable for the murder of a federal judge. Ayers and his cohort are in fact central examples of terrorists. Chomsky really was a vocal defender of Pol Pot's genocidal madness, and so on and on.
And now, having been fed and protected and maintained within the tribal apparatus for decades, these outriders are exploiting institutional crises to make a play for the throne, and Blue Tribe has no meaningful defense against them, precisely because they have not been marginalized! Meanwhile, the right continues to maintain its cordon sanitaire against the Nazis and WNs, and until recently even anyone so-labeled, even well past the point where doing so makes any sort of practical sense. Our insurgency came not from an extremist fringe, but from a broad-based, grass-roots, moderate center; as many have noted, Democrats pretty clearly won the 2024 election, given that Trump, Musk, RFK Jr, and influential supporters like Joe Rogan all were quite recently moderate democrats.
Ultimately politics just can't deliver what so many want from it. It's not the source of prosperity, it's not the fount of culture. It does matter and is necessary to settle coordination problems and keep things moving along. But there's this terrible cycle where politicians promise that the government will deliver what is not in its power to deliver, then they fail and populists think the reason for this failure is because the politicians are insufficiently diligent or forceful.
I'm familiar with the problem, but disagree with your description of it.
Politics runs on hope. You cannot organize political power without offering a narrative about how that power will improve the lives of the people providing that power. Since narratives are just words, narratives can be lies, and lies are generally easier to sell than truths in the short and even the medium and long terms. The only defense available against the advantages of deceit is trust built up by reliable behavior long-term, of good governance and good policies reliably leading to good outcomes.
Our current elite system built what trust they've enjoyed by creating the consensus impression of good governance and good policies, assisted in no small part by extremely strong narrative control arising from a functional monopoly over the mechanisms of knowledge production, and by a large patch of low-hanging technological fruit to be picked. But now the abundance of technological progress has dwindled to a single, narrow corridor of dubious safety and benefit, and the monopoly on knowledge production has been shattered, and in fact the governing elite consensus has been obviously, catastrophically wrong so many times in a row that their credibility has collapsed.
All of this is to say that the terrible cycle you're pointing to is an emergent property of human society under the conditions that we are currently stuck in. Politicians have to promise a relatively hopeful future, and to the extent that this is not possible, they will lose to extremists who at least have not yet been proven useless and wrong.
And this was where things were always going. Progressives secured their social dominance by claiming credit for the post-war boom years; that these conditions were highly artificial and unrepeatable was not something they were willing to admit in their narratives until the 2000s, when they transitioned to the Globalist narrative. Now the Globalist narrative is played out, and they have nothing coherent to replace it with; hence the decay into explicit race and class warfare, which at least can provide a coherent narrative, even if a ghastly one.
The force vector making things worse from politics is founded in your sentiment upstream, that things might as well get worse, we might as well have an actual communist party so that all the masks come off and we can have this end of history battle between the two failed 19th century ideologies.
The Democrats founded massive government entitlements under FDR, and have ceaselessly pushed for the expansion of those entitlements in the multiple decades since. There is no plausible alternate path where they might do otherwise. There is no plausible path where this ceaseless expansion of federal control over the economy does not result in large-scale financial ruin. They were always going to go for open borders. They were always going to go for speech controls, and general restrictions on individual freedom, for massive social engineering campaigns, for making compulsory whatever is not prohibited. These ideological currents have been running strong for three hundred years across the entire western world; how could any of this be otherwise? The concern was that they would continue these trends slowly and carefully with sufficient competence that resistance would continue to be minimal and easily smothered by their mechanisms of social control. It seems good to me that we can, in fact, lay such concerns to rest. Nor do I concede that my ideology is failed, or particularly 19th-century.
I'm of the bold opinion that the Democratic party getting worse is in fact bad, that it has been bad that the Republican party has gotten worse under Trumpism.
One of my formative political experiences was watching the federal government burn dozens of men, women and children alive on national TV, cover it up, have the cover-up fail, and nonetheless escape any meaningful consequences. I'm not sure I agree that the Democratic party is in fact getting worse; I am not willing to endorse the old version either.
Another of my formative political experiences has been observing the Blue Tribe celebration of Progressive politics in Europe. They have been holding Europe up as an explicit example of what could be possible if Red Tribe would just get out of the way for my entire politically-aware life. And now, I can see exactly what it looks like when Progressive politics is allowed to operate without meaningful opposition from Red Tribe, and it looks to me like hell on earth. Why should these empiric observations not contextualize my understanding of Blue Tribe and the Democratic party right down to its core?
Another of my formative political experiences was voting for Bush II on the grounds that he promised to stop engaging in foreign "nation building", and then watch as he dove head-first into the GWOT in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Should America have off-shored its industrial base? Should America have recentered itself around a "service economy"? Should America have attempted to secure and maintain a position as global hegemon? Should America have attempted to forcibly reform and modernize the middle east? Was the Civil Rights regime a good idea? These are serious policy questions, and our answers to them appear to have had serious consequences in the real world. I do not concede that there is some monolithic, undifferentiated "we" that is responsible for the policies resulting from these questions, such that any consequent failures can be attributed to some amorphous "base rate of bad governance." Opposition to industrial offshoring in the 90s was explicitly populist, and support for that offshoring was explicitly emergent from elite/expert consensus. Likewise for American hegemony and foreign adventurism and the Civil Rights regime. Socialization of these failures cannot be allowed, or the elites responsible for them will continue generating such failures until our ruin is absolute.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
Thank you for the explanation! My satisfaction is immeasurable, and my day is improved.
I actually read FiO and a bunch of its spinoffs back in the day, and I think I might have read this Chatoyance person's fic in particular; the art looks familiar. Can't say I remember the story, though.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
Who is Chatoyance, and why do they have a hatedom? I want to know about the Paris Hilton of the amateur crazy straw design world.
Is anyone actually going to grapple with the problem that if there is even one domain where offense is imbalanced with defense for mass death then we're all definitely going to die in this world?
There are more than one domain where offense is imbalanced with defense, and certainly some of these domains involve mass death.
The feasibility of these domains scale with the technology base. Sufficient levels of technology preclude society, and some of those levels are either not far off or else already exist but have not yet been evenly distributed.
Crucially, most of the obvious, plausible domains require the advanced tech base to operate. So it seems at least plausible that tech can seriously damage society, but in the process remove the tech base it depends on, thus throttling the threat below an omnicidal level.
Beyond that, problems that can't be solved except by investing some small group of people with absolute, unaccountable power probably can't be solved period. Alternatively, they're totally solvable so long as it's me and mine getting the absolute, unaccountable power since obviously we're the only ones that can be trusted to wield it responsibly, a fact that only the terribly-irresponsible would possibly fail to recognize.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
Finished The Screwtape Letters - extremely illuminating and thought-provoking book.
It's a good one. Even entirely leaving aside the theological frame, this quote:
The Christians describe the Enemy as one “without whom Nothing is strong”. And Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and fuddled to shake off.
...is a notable piece of cosmic horror, and in my experience observably true.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10d ago
He has shown you, o man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
People point to progressive wins like Roe and Obergefell as these inevitable conservative losses when those issues were fought for way longer than to get to the SCOTUS case.
When Roe hit, people in Red states were able to secure abortions. When Obergefell hit, homosexuals in red states were able to get married. We are now many years and many victories past that point on guns, and none of these victories have actually allowed people in Blue states to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even in many cases the people who specifically won their cases in the Supreme Court. Further, the court has shown a worryingly consistent habit of backing down from or dodging cases addressing the issue, often rejecting cases with much stronger facts in support of the second amendment, in favor of cases with much weaker facts.
I used to believe that the Constitution was whatever five justices said it was. Now it is evident that it is not even that. We have tested the question of whether the Supreme Court can get a decision Blue Tribe doesn't like to stick. It cannot.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
This deserves a more in-depth response, but I really need to get to work, allow me to whack only the tallest poppy:
Obama did not make space for people who praise Mao.
Prairie Fire was a 188-page political manifesto published by the Weather Underground in 1974. It was written primarily by Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn and articulated the radical splinter group's ideology, endorsed revolutionary violence, and, according to Jonah Raskin, "embodied a muffled desperation that underlay the bravado about Third World liberation." The name for the manifesto was derived from the writings of Chinese Communist revolutionary, Mao Zedong. In his “Little Red Book,” he wrote, “a single spark can set a prairie fire" as an analogy for revolution. The ideas in the book drew not only on Maoist philosphy, but also Marxist/Leninism. The manifesto encourages a mix of mass-organizing and clandestine revolutionary violence. "Never disassociate mass struggle from revolutionary violence," the author's argued. "To leave people unprepared to fight the state," they said, "is to seriously mislead them about the inevitable nature of what lies ahead." "Prairie Fire" was distributed in radical bookstores, food coops, headshops, on college campuses and many other places that movement activists met. It was met with a combination of strong emotions throughout the Left. Ultimately, the ideological arguments articulated in "Prairie Fire" led to a new split in the Weather Underground, with some gravitating toward the "Prairie Fire Collective," which favored mass-based, above-ground revolutionary politics, and the "May 19th Communist Organization," which remained underground and pulled off the infamous Brinks robbery in 1981.
Do you recognize a conflict between these two statements?
@Corvos for good measure.
Do you have citations or examples for any of that?
Of course I do.
Who, exactly, are these Blues who want to ban Christianity
-
National-level Democratic candidates have campaigned on the idea of taxing churches whose teachings they disagree with.
-
Virginia Democrat to Introduce Bill to Prosecute Parents Who Refuse to Treat Child as Opposite Sex, plus the coverage of this law in Blue media. California passed a law making acceptance of GAC a factor in custody disputes. Lots of commentary from Blues generally supportive of this idea.
-
Masterpiece Cake Shop and related cases as a measure of legal tolerance for Christians generally in Blue territory. Conclusion: Blues will coordinate legal consequences for those who do not conform, and the courts are unwilling or unable to make them stop.
-
Observable trends in application of "hostile work environment" laws in corporate workplaces or the educational system. Where human interaction is most governed by rules, how do the rules actually work?
-
The FACE act, and the history of its enforcement.
-
SPLC framing of "Christian Radicals" as a terror nexus > FBI/Law Enforcement scrutiny of communities so labeled > debanking, crackdowns in the corporate/financial sector, with none of this recognized as a problem in any way by Blues.
-
the Kamloops "graves", the subsequent church burnings, and the reaction to those burnings by officials, the media, and Blue Tribe generally.
-
COVID lockdowns and how they were applied to churches and to freedom to worship generally, versus Progressive-approved mass gatherings.
-
More generally, the observable trajectory of first amendment activism, and Progressive attitudes toward dissent generally, and Progressive attitudes toward what I would recognize as actual Christianity. They hate us, and if you think laws or rules will restrain that hate long-term, you are lying to yourself.
-
More specifically, Christians worshipping in public in Seattle have been repeatedly attacked by antifa, the police have repeatedly declined to intervene, local officials have blamed the Christians for causing the problem through being Christians in public. Local sentiment appears to hold that this is fine, that the Christians should have known better than to intrude. Progressive sentiment nationally doesn't appear to see this as a problem that needs addressing.
revoke police protections
Rioting is a well-established Blue Tribe political tactic, codified under the maxim "No Justice, no peace", and has been for decades. Blue officials will withdraw police protection by ordering officers to stand down and let the rioters act as they please. One of the most egregious examples of this was CHAZ, where police stood back and allowed rifle-wielding gunmen to seize control of a neighborhood, threatening and shooting at the locals without interference, for a month straight, only changed their policy when the gunmen actually murdered someone, and explicitly allowed the gunmen to walk away from the murder they committed with zero effort made to apprehend them. Progressives nationwide watched this behavior, and either shrugged uncomfortably or actively defended it.
Christians? white people? Something else?
Reds seems like a reasonable catch-all, but Christians specifically is an obvious point of friction.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
To the degree that we're declining it's almost entirely due to these populist currents causing awful short sighted political decisions.
A lot of people think the 1990s were pretty good years, and they're my personal bet for America's high-water mark. Would you care to make a list of the worst political decisions made since 1990, and see how many of them were populist vs elite, or however you'd frame the dichotomy?
No, it's actually not good that we're going to have brain dead communist populists fighting brain dead right wing populists over who can hold back progress more effectively in 2028.
This is where the sense of unceasing decline comes from.
In would in fact be much better for everyone if the communists were kept marginalized.
When were they marginalized in the first place?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
I would rather live in a white, Western European, country with views diametrically opposed to my own than a non-white one that agrees with me on a bunch of stuff.
It depends on the diametrically-opposed views on the one hand, and the non-white country on the other. I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in Singapore or South Korea or Japan or even Vietnam than in East Germany or post-revolution Russia. I'm pretty sure there are some South-American countries I'd take over the combloc in full flower. There might even be some places in Africa that make the cut.
In any case, what profits choosing the white, Western European country if one of their diametrically-opposed views is on the necessity of importing infinite non-whites as fast as possible and at any cost?
Going back to what I actually posted, do you actually agree with Joe Biden that a black person who didn't vote for him isn't black?
No, that's stupid.
Or that a person who wears a shirt and tie and is on time all the time is white?
No, that's also stupid.
Personally, I think race is biological and related to one's ancestry.
So do I. But again, so what? At no point have I denied that race or ancestry exist, only that they necessarily trump beliefs and values.
Now that I've offered simple, straightforward answers to your questions, maybe you could do the same to mine?
Do you actually think there are no black or Muslim people with whom you could meaningfully cooperate? Do you think there are no white people with whom you cannot meaningfully cooperate?
Suppose the democrats win the next election or two pretty decisively, and then legalize and grant voting rights to a few dozen million illegal immigrants.
Do you think this is an unlikely thing for the Democrats to do, given the statements and revealed preferences of their base, leadership and elite class?
Likely or not, Do you think that this is a valid policy option within the scope of what we ought to consider business-as-usual politics? What do you think the consequences would be on subsequent elections? What do you think the consequences would be in terms of America as a going sociopolitical concern over the next ten or twenty years?
If Trump had been killed in Butler, an event all evidence indicates was avoided by a very small margin and on pure chance, what do you think the likely consequences would have been?
If Red Tribe begins deploying lawless violence as a deliberate political strategy, what do you think the likely consequences will be?
That's certainly my position. Appeals to morality in the field of politics under current conditions are an obscenity.
More options
Context Copy link