FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
and even reports that reached NPR of shootings of unarmed civilians-
I'm pretty sure InRangeTV did a dive on one of those incidents.
True, and that's why the only solution is to abandon the framework where the measure of equality is the equality of statistical outcomes between races (or any other large population-wide categories, for that matter).
Humans form tribal feelings for other people who seem like them. Humans are predisposed to perceive those who share their race as "like them". This can be overridden, but the effect is real and overriding it is not easy, especially when the environment seems threatening. Blacks have an environment that seems threatening, and there is no plausible way to get them to stop forming tribal attachments to others of their race. And this is doubly so when one of the tribes outputs a constant firehose of propaganda about how all their misfortunes are the fault of the other tribe, who hate them explicitly because of their race.
I don't care how many people who have the same eye color as me and the same nose length as me are rich and how many are poor.
I care when people say that whites should be discriminated against or disadvantaged, because I'm white. I care when people hurt or kill white people explicitly for their skin color, because, again, I'm white. I mostly don't care how rich other whites are, because I'm doing pretty okay. If whites were an underclass, and I had reason to believe that the upper classes were keeping us down on purpose, I would definitely care about that.
I care about whether I could be prevented from being richer or made poorer by unjust means.
And they manifestly were being made poorer by unjust means, and they've been told for decades that they still are being made poorer by unjust means. Our whole society is built on propagating that idea. Why would they not believe it?
To be an "underclass" you should first be a "class", and "classes" are entirely arbitrary.
It could be argued that "Jew" is an arbitrary class. But if the Nazis have settled on a definition that includes you, and are actively trying to exterminate you, recognizing the arbitrary nature of "class" doesn't resolve the problem.
In the same way, Blacks are, as the saying goes, "less likely", and not by a small margin. It is not in their individual or collective interest to reject group identity as arbitrary, because then most of them would still be in the same miserable position, only now they'd be alone, with their community ties severed. For most of them, that would very likely put them in a strictly worse position, and this fact is sufficiently obvious that they simply aren't going to do it.
Who are "they"?
The actual, current black community, or whoever they choose or designate from among that community. If it's actually a problem, let Oprah and Obama pick a panel to get the ball rolling. It doesn't really matter who they are, so long as they're unambiguously recognized as black by other blacks. The point is that it not be me or you, because if it's us, we'll be blamed for any bad outcomes that result. Many Blacks see themselves as a separate group, and the point is to give that group absolute power to do things its own way while insulating anyone who doesn't want to participate from the consequences.
What does it mean "control completely" - does it secede from the US?
Effectively, yes. The people inside run it however they want with zero interference from the rest of the country, but with the current level of funding that the occupants would otherwise receive under our current system, and possibly significantly more. They can keep our laws or write their own, interpret our laws however they want or discard them entirely. Let them do things exactly as they think they should be done. If they want to ban private property or institute full communism or legalize murder of white people or make everyone attend their local Baptist church on Sundays, that's fine: everyone there is there because they want to be, and if they don't like it they can leave at any time.
What happens to people that want to keep living in the US and keep being US citizens and keep having US laws? I don't see why for example a black professor at local university would suddenly want to subject himself to a regime that may not be able to sustain any universities at all. Doesn't he have any rights?
...You have fundamentally misunderstood the proposal. No one of any race has to go there, at all, ever. Participation is entirely voluntary. It's a place where the only legitimate legal authority is expressly reserved for its black occupants, carte blanche, but where no one at all is actually required to go, and funded out of the outlays we'd already be providing to the percentage of the population who chooses to live there voluntarily, plus however much extra is required to sufficiently sweeten the pot. The people who believe that US society is founded on white supremacy and structural racism would now have an alternative that has had any plausible influence of white supremacy removed, while sacrificing as few of the advantages of American citizenship as possible. Meanwhile, everyone else can move on with their lives according to colorblind rules. If someone in the rest of the country complains about racism, you now point out to them that if they have a problem, there's an alternative easily available to them, and if they keep complaining, you mock them mercilessly until they shut up.
Areas can't write laws. People write laws. Who will be choosing these people?
It would not be my place to say, nor yours either. The point would not be to create what you or I think of as good governance. The point would be to create, as explicitly as possible, governance by Blacks on their own terms and in their own way, as an explicit alternative to the system governing the rest of the country.
What if there would be 10 groups of people writing ten competing sets of laws - which group is the real one that gets the full control?
That would be for them to sort out. The whole point is that they're in charge of this area, with no plausible legacy of white supremacy and racism to hinder them. Intervening in any way other than the unambiguously positive, ie providing a steady supply of cash, would be completely counterproductive.
Will it blockade the area if there would be threat of violence spreading out?
Their authority is absolute inside the border and null outside it. People who want to leave can at any time, but are subject to standard colorblind US law as soon as they cross the border. That probably should handle any actual problems short of weapons of mass destruction.
What about if they decide to build a giant meth factory and ship it to the US?
We check goods at the border and confiscate contraband. We don't do anything to those inside manufacturing the meth, we just don't let them export it to the rest of the country. Ditto for whatever other hypothetical; treat it like a foreign country, but with more leniency than usual. If they decide to make low-cost drugs and export them to the rest of America... that might not actually be a bad thing.
They already have this status, why we need the racist paradise to achieve what we already have?
The point is that many of them don't believe that colorblind society is actually operating in good faith, so you need to give them a demonstration of good faith, and that demonstration of good faith needs to actually resolve the concerns in a reliable way without opening the rest of us up to exploitation. Reparations are an example of an exploitable demonstration of good faith. This would cost less and be highly resistant to exploitation, and offer a good chance to actually resolve the majority of the distrust.
...The rest of your questions seem to be predicated on people being forced to live in such a zone, rather than being offered a free choice to live there or not as they see fit, so I'll end it here.
Go their own way where?
I disagree fundamentally with some of @Hoffmeister25's axioms, but in the formulation of the problem he's more or less straightforwardly correct. Blacks will never accept being an underclass any more than whites would, and there is no reason to believe that any solutions inside the Overton window can actually extricate them from their underclass status.
As for solutions, here's a modest proposal I wrote awhile back. As a list of things that are never going to happen, I think there's much to commend it.
I have previously proposed Reverse-Segregation: give blacks an area that they control completely, where every public official and government position must be held 100% by black people, by law. Grant this area leave to write its own laws as it sees fit, irrespective of the American constitution, and grant it leave to enforce and adjudicate those laws as it sees fit, completely outside the jurisdiction of the rest of American jurisprudence. Fund it with a per-capita percentage of all outlays legitimately payable to black Americans equivalent to the percentage of black Americans who actually live within it. People, white or black, can move there if they want, and leave if they want; no one can be kept there against their will, and no law-abiding citizen be prevented from going there by the rest of America if they choose to go. Then declare that outside this zone, racism has been solved. Blacks get the exact same legal status as everyone else. No AA, no hate crime laws, no special privileges, we implement pure colorblind enforcement of the letter of the law. Race-based discrimination is equally illegal no matter which race it's applied to. If certain words are evidence of bias, they're evidence regardless of who speaks them. Claims of bias will no longer be entertained unless they come with ironclad evidence. And if anyone doesn't like this, there's a place they can move. Welfare can even continue outside the zone as well, we just use cellphone data to track who's inside and who's outside and apportion the money appropriately. Anyone not-black who wants to can move inside the zone, they just can't hold office or vote for anyone who isn't black, presuming the zone decides to keep voting. Maybe even throw in something about the zone expanding if its population rises too high.
I think Hoff would not be wildly enthused with a plan like that, but I wonder if he'd take it. I wouldn't be wildly enthused for it either, and my expectation is that the zone would either turn into a corrupt shithole or what many now would consider a draconian police state in fairly short order. The idea of enforcing "racism is over" outside the zone is likewise laughably unrealistic; blues will never, ever let that weapon be pried from betwixt their fingers.
In any case, I think he's right that the colorblind 90s aren't coming back. Some problems don't have acceptable solutions. We can in fact keep right on burning social cohesion trying to bail water with sieves until things actually fall apart in a serious enough way to leave us with more pressing concerns.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
Show me a person of influence who made this case when the George Floyd video dropped.
I do not believe anything the Russians could ever say or do could hold even a flickering candle to the gigaton flare generated by the actual words and deeds of genuine Americans.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
The problem with Southern whites wanting to venerate a lie about Robert E. Lee
The statement was "myth", not "lie". Can you specify "a lie about Robert E. Lee" that Southern whites in general want to venerate?
I have been repeatedly told that the history of the Civil War that I grew up on was the "Dunning School", a deceptive attempt to hide the crimes of the South. I've never actually figured out which crimes were hidden from me. I was taught from the start that from the perspective of the South, the Civil War was fought explicitly in defense of Slavery as an institution, but most of the people bringing up the Dunning School claim that denying this was one of the central points of the program. So on the one hand I'm told I've been lied to, and on the other hand the claimed nature of the lie is either unspecified or, in my experience, itself straightforwardly false. I was taught that Robert E Lee was an honorable man who fought ablely for a bad cause, lost, and accepted the verdict of battle with dignity. Which part of that was false?
Which prominent figures on the Union side do you consider worthy of veneration? John Brown? Sherman? Grant? Lincoln? I'm quite fond of all of them, as it happens. Are you?
Now, I know the response to do this is something like, "well, MLK Jr. cheated on his wife" or whatever.
It's routine for me to encounter left-leaning people who venerate Lenin or Trotsky or some other august personage among the Bolsheviks, or who venerate people generations later who engaged in lawless violence in support of their cause. I encounter more who think these people were just rascally knuckleheads, and have precisely zero knowledge of the horrors they unleashed and championed. I think those people are straightforwardly worse than the modal Robert E Lee admirer, because the people and institutions they venerate were straightforwardly worse than the slaving South. And this, on the understanding that the South richly deserved to have a significant portion of its men ground into worm-food because of the evils they perpetrated. From where I sit, the left doesn't have the slightest claim to moral insight, much less moral superiority. A significant portion of politically-active leftists are isomorphic to actual-literal-and-not-figurative neo-nazis.
Lee wasn't even a good general.
My understanding is that his contemporaries disagree with your assessment. Certainly I have never heard of any of the prominent generals fighting against him claiming that he was bad at his job.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
That said, our country's most prolific rapist actually did rape hundreds of young men with the drug, so it has been used for that.
Yeah, it's a bit weird to read comments about how drink spiking is vanishingly rare, right after listening to the press conference about the P Diddler accusations. I'm pretty sure both are true, and it's pretty crazy to wonder what percentage of the chemically-induced rapes in the last 25 years were literally just Sean Combs and his associates. I mean, the number couldn't possibly be that high, but with something like three thousand accusers and what appears to be significant evidence of guilt, it really activates the almonds.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
Look at the conservative embrace of Sidney Sweeney or all the rightoid influencers on X who prominently display cleavage while opining on whatever issue: the new conservative messaging is "It's good for men to want to fuck real women," because too many other, weirder avenues have opened up in pop culture.
Speaking of Sweeney in particular, I encountered enthusiasm for her breasts by listening to the Critical Drinker's "Open Bar" stream while working. The open bar has some actual conservatives, but it seems to me that the core group is pretty clearly tits-and-beer liberals who have been left behind by the rapid advance of Social Justice ideology.
Is what you're seeing a shift in core conservatives, or is it a shift in the center as SJ evolution pushes an increasingly-broad spectrum of people into oppositional alliance?
Now that the left is so far down the sex-as-anything-but-breeding path, we can be more honest about the merits of good old-fashioned fucking.
I think this is pretty accurate, and I think I see it in a lot of other ways too. A lot of the old conflicts between Christian denominations have gone away, now that the central example of a doctrinal dispute has shifted from "what hierarchy do we answer to" to "does sin exist". Many such cases, as they say. Polarization is very, very real.
That quake hit about 3M people living in ridiculously poor and dense conditions. It’s a terrible comparison for the electrified, paved, American-standard-of-living Southeast.
This is an excellent point.
Is your general sense that the cleanup and rescue efforts are proceeding more or less as well as we could ask for? I've heard complaints, but I haven't seen strong evidence either way, nor had the time to track down the details to a level where I could be confident that I understand the actual situation.
On the one hand, partisanship obviously dominates from both ends; the people running things have every incentive to present everything as fine, and the people opposing them have every incentive to present everything as a total disaster. This is complicated by heavy bias in the media, so the default narrative is definately going to favor the people running things in the current situation; the flipside is that any complaints are going to come from the opposition ghetto, which observably has poor quality control.
On the other hand, this is a time-sensitive issue; the three days between your comment and this reply could have been quite significant. If there is actually a problem, it would have been imperative to identify and correct it as quickly as possible.
On the gripping hand, I have no expectation that this can actually be done in a timely manner in the present environment. I mainly want to discuss it now as a marker, and check back in a month or two as the facts present themselves. The problem there, as I snarkily alluded to, is that it seems to me that after-the-fact, sober assessments of what really happened don't actually penetrate, even here. They become old news and people move on, even if the weight of evidence falls hard on one side or the other. There are exceptions; Ymeshkout did what seemed to me to be a very good job hammering election fraud claims, for example, but exceptions don't seem like they're enough.
This is a serious post and deserves a serious response, which I don't have time to write tonight. But one thing I will say right now is that I put the disclaimer "Assuming the secondary sources about The Civil War are roughly correct" in for a reason.
Fair enough.
Grah.
The proper way to have a serious discussion is to get to know a person really well, and then have an intimate meeting of the minds. That isn't really practical in a forum like this one, so to a greater or lesser extent, I find myself building a model of the person I'm talking to, and then arguing against that model. I can update the model as the conversation progresses, but it's a lossy process at the best of times, and it's prone to bleed-through when having a very similar part of a conversation with multiple people.
I've argued this particular issue a number of times with a number of people, and it's entirely possible that I'm rounding you to positions you don't have. If that's the case, you have my apologies. If you want to continue this later, I'll be interested in reading your thoughts.
If you ever get the chance, you should watch "Civil War". It is one of my favorite documentaries, and I think it is an excellent example of actual "civil religion", in the sense the rationalists use the term.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
Sure, maybe. Sometimes those things happen.
Sometimes they happen often enough that they foment irresistibly-large social movements demanding draconian top-down enforcement to prevent their failure states.
Neither chewing bubblegum nor consuming fentanyl guarantee doom. But there's a pretty large mountain of evidence that Free Love is closer to the Fent end than the bubblegum end, and thus, it seems to me, something people should generally steer away from. It's not close enough to the fent end that I'd advocate passing laws and enforcing them with the police, but it's close enough that I'm not really interested in expending significant effort to stop others from doing that, even when they're being quite dishonest about the nature of the problem. It's certianly bad enough to make an explicit point of the chain of causality between the Free Love narrative of "harmless fun" and the very real and apparently quite significant amounts of harm it has been causing for the last several decades. As the evidence continues to accumulate, hopefully people will learn to make better choices voluntarily, and those who do not can serve as cautionary examples.
They'd be no better than utilitarians at that point.
This is a fully-general argument against prudence in any form.
Communism involved large amounts of deliberate mass murder, and large amounts of mass rape and torture as well. Nor was this some aberration of Stalin or Pol Pot; Marx himself explicitly endorsed mass murder of "others" as a goal in the founding documents of the movement. It was, as you say, the explicit plan from the start.
Describing Communism as "taking cretinous well-intentioned ideas too seriously" is exactly the sort of thing the OP was describing.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
Aztecs killed far less people, but they remain strong contender to be more evil. Maybe in a quite tragic way as they actually believed own religion.
In what way are they "more evil"?
Similarly, nazi Germany is in my opinion more evil than USSR.
Why?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
How many of them lasted as long, or held so many in thrall, or caused so much damage, or brought us so close to much, much worse?
I stand by my original statement. The nazis lasted twelve years, and roughly the same for the Japanese empire. The communists held power for nearly a century, and ruled something like a third of the whole world for roughly two generations, killing and brutalizing an absolutely staggering number of people in that time.
Not getting married. Divorce if they do get married. A general inability to form durable relationships with a member of the opposite sex. No kids. Kids raised missing a father or a mother, with the attendant significant increase in poor outcomes for the kids. Acute misery from breakups and lingering psychic trauma from bad relationships. Generally decreased mental wellness, and/or chronic dependency on mind-altering pharmaceuticals. General dissatisfaction with the results of their life choices. Significantly decreased sexual satisfaction over their lifetime. Significant pain and regret.
Last I heard, trad life gave better outcomes in pretty much all of these, while also offering superior protection from STDs, out-of-wedlock kids and psycho murder as well. Still, it seems obvious to me that there's large amounts of less dramatic but still highly significant misery generated by Free Love leftovers.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
Granted, I've never been a father, but I don't see why it's supposed to be automatically humiliating or horrible in some other way for a father to know that his daughter is having sex with dozens of guys.
Your model here is that your hypothetical daughter is having fun and no negative consequences accrue, right? She's being "safe", meaning there's no babies to take care of and no STDs to treat and she's not getting murdered by a psycho, so everything should be fine because those are the central examples of bad outcomes from sexual activity between humans?
One of those four was part of the Communist empire, and another allied with them to initiate wars of aggression.
about The Civil War are roughly correct, Ken Burns was a useful idiot of Shelby Foote.
...And PBS as well, of course? No one involved in the large bureaucratic government organization knew any better?
Burns was not a historian, and was not aware that the Dunning School history he had learned in high school was largely bogus. So when Foote basically recounts the high school history Burns is familiar with added military detail and colour, Burns doesn't feel the need to consult a second historian.
...Like the black historian prominently featured in the series, who talks at length in multiple segments about the black perspective on the war and its surrounding events? Further, my understanding of the standard Dunning School narrative is that the Civil War wasn't actually fought over slavery, that slavery wasn't actually all that bad and so on. My recollection is that PBS's The Civil War very explicitly claims that the civil war was fought over slavery, and is very explicit about the many ways in which slavery was barbaric and horrifying. So what exactly is the "largely bogus" history they're supposed to be communicating?
I think both Burns and Foote would have preferred to make a film that treated the Civil War as a series of battles between two groups of martially virtuous men with no underlying political causes, but obviously you can't do that and have it make sense.
And the fact that the series they actually produced heavily engaged with the underlying political causes leads you to this conclusion how? Certainly they did not cover all the intricacies; just for one example, they portray John Brown as an honorable man driven to extremism by principle, glossing over the part where he and his companions engaged in straight-up terrorist murder of innocent civilians. Nevertheless, having read deeper into the details, it seems to me that their account does a good job of capturing the essence. John Brown was, in fact, a murderous terrorist, but he was also driven to extremism by recognizable principles, and his actions are understandable for the same reasons that, say, a person car-bombing a Blue Tribe office building over abortion would be understandable: at some point, the blood of the innocent must be answered for.
And by the same token, I can extend sympathy to the Confederates for the same reasons I can extend sympathy to current Blues: the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. No one is simply "evil", and the misery of humanity is not simply the fault of "bad people". We all have it coming, one way or the other, and we should at least consider valuing mercy over swift justice, because swift justice means not an axe in our hands, but our head on a block.
If I could summarize the narrative of the series, it would be that our society's embrace of evil brought ruin on a vast scale, but through the conflict people found a way to both end some of that evil and to restore peace again. The bloodletting was probably unavoidable, and given that it resulted in the end of slavery, pretty clearly a net-positive. The people on both sides had many admirable and many deplorable qualities, but in the end the admirable qualities came to the fore, and peace was restored. The result was not a just utopia, or even a particularly good society; as in our own time, the price of peace was the toleration of considerable evil. Nonetheless, it's hard to argue that things weren't better at the end than they were at the beginning, and in the history of warfare that is in fact a fairly notable outcome.
To the extent that this is not good enough for you, I think you are quite foolish, but we all make our own choices freely.
Shelby Foote was unambiguously a supporter of treason (he said in 1997, "I would fight for the Confederacy today if the circumstances were similar.")
Hypothetical support based on "the circumstances" from a guy who, as you've noted, supported the civil rights act actually seems at least somewhat ambiguous; if he'd fight for slavery, why support the civil rights act? If he'd side with his state in a fight against the federal government over some actual present point of conflict, that would also be "similar circumstances", wouldn't it? Your entire case against him is that he has opinions on history and on hypotheticals that you don't like, not on anything of consequence he actually did.
Or perhaps I'm splitting hairs. Maybe you're right, and Shelby Foote was a Traitor. Presumably then, negative affect accrues, and we all join together to condemn his name and works, and to look with disfavor on those foolish enough to associate with him. Obviously this stance is principled, and not merely word games to exploit perceived vulnerabilities in those considered to be intellectual inferiors. So, just to be really clear here:
Bill Ayers: Traitor, or not? Worse than Foote, or not?
Angela Davis: Traitor, or not? Worse than Foote, or not?
It's hard to escape the impression that you are using "Traitor" and "Treason" as a conditioned call to obedience, as though you can apply the label and conservative types like me will fall in line because The Rules Are The Rules and we're All In This Together. It's an appeal to a system we share, and of course, you'll totally have our backs when the shoe is on the other foot; it's our turn to tear down the properly designated Bad Person, and of course, unquestionably, you also will do the same when we apply the label to someone in your general vicinity, because The Rules Are The Rules. This labeling-of-bad-people process is a thing we mutually share and respect, right?
Right?
Do you believe that a significant portion of Reds still recognize some degree of binding loyalty to your tribe, such that a concept like "treason" is meaningful? Do you think if a plane hits an office building in New York tomorrow, Reds are going to be lining up at the recruitment offices to avenge their "murdered brethren"?
After the Civil war, there was a "We" again. We made peace, and slowly, painfully, we tried to make a better society together. We weren't perfect at it, or even particularly good; I wish the southern Blacks had been armed en masse, and the KKK had gutted itself on organized community defenses rather than being allowed to dwindle into a jobs program for federal snitches. On the other hand, we actually made some pretty good progress, and The Civil War does a reasonable encapsulation of how we did it: we accepted that people in the past were neither saints nor monsters, and we tried to mourn the bad and move on with the good. And after much struggle and conflict, and after no small measure of injustice, things were legitimately pretty good there for a couple decades, Confederate statues and Confederate flags and all.
And now, because of arguments of the sort you're advancing here, the confederate statues and flags are gone, and all it cost us is a few thousand extra black people murdered every year for the last four years and continuing indefinitely into the future, a price that was predicted in advance, and that Blues here appear to find more or less acceptable. Respect for the valor of a defeated opponent wasn't killing massive numbers of black people, but deliberately spreading lies about how our whole society is based on "white supremacy" absolutely has. Blues needed a scapegoat for their own failures, and they didn't much care who got hurt so long as they could keep portraying themselves as the good guys.
For this and similar reasons, there is not really a "We" any more. Things are much worse than they were a mere decade ago, and they seem likely to continue to get worse for the foreseeable future. Another massive bloodletting is a distinct possibility. Like last time, people can see it coming, but cannot figure out a way to avoid it, or even properly understand the mechanisms of its arrival.
I, like you, blame Traitors. We would probably not agree on who they are, though.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
do the bannings interfere with actually using the engine, or is this mainly a social media thing?
Using the word 'hypersonic' is not exactly accurate and may be a little misleading, better just call them balistic missiles.
Are these not Kalibur-style cruise missles? From the video, it looks like they're burning till impact.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
It was renamed in 2023. You don't think it takes a while for this name update to course through the public consciousness?
I was not aware that it was renamed, but at least one of the people @MadMonzer linked to was very clearly aware, as they made an explicit point of refusing to use the current name.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
That's pretty close to how I see it as well.
From the link:
In addition, a total of 550 National Guard personnel were deployed to the region to assist first responders with search and rescue missions, delivering supplies and working to restore infrastructure to the affected areas.
From a naive perspective, 550 NG personnel seems low. commitments from the other states list three helicopters with 17 crew. Again, that seems kinda low.
Since it's the comparison people are drawing, here's the numbers for the 2010 Haiti earthquake:
The response included personnel from all branches of the military.[3] The U.S. Navy listed its resources in the area on 19 January [One week after the event] as "17 ships, 48 helicopters and 12 fixed-wing aircraft" in addition to 10,000 sailors and Marines.[4] By 26 January, the U.S. military had 17,000 personnel in and around Haiti.[5] Between the beginning of relief efforts and 18 February the US Air Force had delivered nearly 6,000 support members and 19 million pounds of cargo while evacuating 15,000 American citizens and conducted aeromedical evacuations for 223 critical Haitian patients.[6]
Naively, it sounds like they're sending ~1/10th the resources, and that does seem a bit surprising. Maybe the state and federal resources have things under control, so there's no need for NG resources, but that's not what I would expect for a very large and highly unexpected natural disaster.
Either way, I imagine we'll know the truth soon enough: either they'll handle the situation swiftly and in good order, or this will become another insignificant event not worth talking about.
Because I observe it existing at this very moment. There is a significant number of black people who believe that they are being harmed by my tribe in particular, and that we will continue harming them until they and their allies have all the power and we have none. This is encouraged by Blue Tribe, who amplify such claims to distract from the consequences of the power that they have exercised for decades. "Black Sepratists" are beside the point; the system is not aimed at them, it's aimed at people demanding dominance over our current society. The point is to seperate "control over themselves" from "control over me", to highlight and isolate those for whom the later is in fact the actual point. Further, it highlights the degree to which this has already happened; how Blue enclaves already are not constrained to any great degree by Red preferences or institutional markers.
I am pretty sure that if you established a new political zone with with no practical limits on policy and a significant guaranteed cash flow to anyone willing to form a government, a fair number of people would be lining up to give it a shot. If Oprah wasn't interested, BLM would, and if not them, some black-fronted libertarians. Depending on who was running it and how, I might be willing to move there.
The point of the thought experiment is to try to imagine what it would actually look like to take their concerns seriously and give them as much of what they say they want as possible, while insulating the rest of us from any harmful effects that might result. Given that they are observably pushing schemes such as absolute racial dictatorships, "reparations" to the tune of dozens of trillions of dollars, and the complete overthrow of our justice system, I see no harm in exploring less-insane portions of the possibility space.
Nothing, of course. but rhetorically, the point would be proving that they do, in fact, prefer to stay where they are and demand reparations, when this would satisfy their stated goals much better for much cheaper.
Offer them compensation for moving if they wish to move, and likewise for people who wish to move in. Expensive, sure, but a fraction of the cost of some of Kendi's proposals.
The blacks who freely choose to move there and establish local government.
Yes. Why should they be forced to live under white supremacist institutions, when it would be so easy to simply not do that? What harm is caused to the rest of us if Atlanta gets to make its own laws as it sees fit?
It seems like you are not grasping the principle here. I have no terminal interest in controlling the lives of my outgroup or my fargroup. If black people or Blue Tribers don't like being ruled by me, it is straightforwardly in my interest to facilitate an amicable separation whereby they do their thing in their area and I do my thing in my area and we simply leave each other alone. I may think their thing is awful, but if they're not willing to work with me and they're not willing to change, it is much better for permit them to do their awful thing somewhere far from me, rather than trying to force them to do things my way. I do not want to be ruled by people who hate me, but neither do I wish to rule people who hate me.
It is useful to frame the conversation this way, because some people really do seem to want to rule their outgroup, apparently as a terminal goal. Others believe that simply leaving each other alone is impossible, which amounts to the same thing. When discussing and organizing politics, it seems quite important to me to have a firm understanding on which people are genuinely just trying to be left alone, and which mean to rule.
In that case, I submit that since we already have a thousand-mile border with a giant uncontrollable narco-state, adding another, much smaller narco-state won't actually make the problem all that much worse.
For the same reason they agreed to letting BLM and antifa burn their cities, I'd imagine: stupid virtue signaling, purity spirals, and a maniacal commitment to Progressive ideology. The prize would be too big for the Black Community to coordinate refusal, and acceptance would be too-well rewarded for the rest of the Progressive movement to withstand the incentive gradient.
She probably wouldn't. But I bet once it got rolling, she'd be interested in trying to steer it toward good outcomes. Ditto for Obama.
It's a political non-starter because it is so obviously all downside. The point is to formulate the minimum viable upside to make it attractive not to people like you, but specifically to the sort of person who genuinely believes that our society is shot through with racism and white supremacy. Hence the financial incentives created by giving the zone a guaranteed cashflow and guaranteed political autonomy.
Those places don't enjoy the advantages of being a literal part of America, which this state would. They also don't enjoy guaranteed, no-strings-attached cashflow from the US federal government, which this place also would. Their citizens couldn't return to the US at will, which this state's citizens could.
It's easy to propose some sort of mean-spirited deportation scheme under some level of veiling. The point of this is to actually explore the degree to which their preferences could actually be satisfied without unacceptable costs to the rest of us, and to explore what costs are actually "unacceptable".
Americans of any color who chose to move to this state would still enjoy full citizenship rights in the colorblind US, to which they could return at any time, and full access to welfare services (guaranteed when outside the zone under colorblind law, and inside it depending on the laws they collectively write). Black Americans who chose to do so would have significantly greater representation in local power structures, and to the degree that they have no control over national power, they also are granted complete immunity from it within their border. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Blues would stop admiring them. There is no hook or secret gotcha here for the occupants.
My offer is specifically designed to avoid costing them these things, unless they themselves chose to reject them, which I absolutely do not expect them to do.
If Blue Tribe offered me a deal like this, a city or a small state with existing infrastructure, a significant guaranteed cashflow, and complete freedom from their political and social interference, where the government could only be held by, say, Gun Culture types or Christians, and where we could live under whatever laws we prefer, I would move there in a heartbeat. And again, this is another point of the exercise: to generate a sincere, good-faith offer to your opposites that you yourself would take if the positions were reversed, to explore the degree to which compromise is possible even in principle.
I see no reason why they would believe that it would be a soon-to-be-shithole. I expect it to turn into a shithole because I believe that shitholes are what their ideology reliably produce, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. And I'm not "absolving myself" of responsibility; I'm offering them the chance to take responsibility, because the ability of Blacks and Blues to shirk responsability for their own actions and decisions is a huge part of the problem we're stuck with. I would be happy to take a deal like this offered to my tribe, even if the people offering it did so with the full expectation that my ideology would result in an immediate shithole, because I think they're wrong.
On the other hand, I'd be fascinated to hear why those offered this deal in good faith would reject it, because it would seem to me that rejecting it would be a tacit admission that they know on some level that my tribe is right, that their ideology would in fact create a shithole, and that they are in fact dependent on my tribe to cover for their excesses and abuses.
More options
Context Copy link