MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
I think it’s perfectly predictable. When elections take on apocalyptic significance, it’s easy to convince people to believe in fraud when they don’t when.
I’ll be honest, politics is something that works best when people aren’t that interested. The people most likely to take it too seriously are the ones who know least about the issues and policies that they’re indirectly voting on. They’re watching it like wrestling fans, except that they believe that civilization itself hangs on the outcome.
And also weird that it took so many attempts on the life of Trump to get them to try at all.
I’ll be honest, I think this is mostly theater, either for domestic audiences “see, we actually don’t want anything to happen to him”, or foreign audiences “we know, don’t try it.” It seems weird to make all of this public if the goal is to prevent an assassination. They know where he’ll be and when, and it would seem odd that they situation is serious enough that they have to change venues twice yet not serious enough that they aren’t worried about making the venue public information. Serious enough that you need anti drone tech, but not serious enough that you might do something like unmarked cars that an agent couldn’t locate.
I don’t think Confucius is “anti-power-use”. The system works by those above treating those below as beloved children, while those below treat those above like loving parents. It’s a reciprocal approach to human society that recognizes the natural hierarchical nature of human society and uses it to promote harmony. I owe the emperor my loyalty, he owes me to think about the welfare of us peasants when making decisions. Of course all of this would mean nothing if the only decisions made are symbolic. If the prince im to obey only chooses between Yellow robes or blue robes, there’s no reason not to obey. Obeying decisions that you agree with or that don’t matter, I’d hardly think it matters. Why would you need to focus obedience around a system where no one makes consequential decisions? Obedience is easy when the decisions don’t matter. When the decisions do matter, that’s where obedience counts for something. If you decide to force people to move, that takes obedience. Telling you to paint th3 houses green less so.
Yeah, in a nutshell. The emperor has all the power, but he also, because he has all the power and because the position is hereditary, has the incentives pointed squarely in the direction of keeping the nation in good shape. A peaceful and prosperous empire makes the imperial family rich and secures their positions. Looting the country, imposing bad ideas on the citizens, destroying the commons, etc. would tend to reduce the peace and prosperity, make the imperial family worse off, and put them in a precarious position because if things get bad enough, there will be a revolution.
My rejoinder to that is how do you keep “equality before the law” and “judgement by content of character” and meritocracy? That’s where it all started. How do you keep untalented people who just happen to be minorities from crying “discrimination” when they’re passed over for promotion or don’t get into the college they want to etc.? How do you keep the government run by politicians running for office from turning directly to the racial spoils system and promising all kinds of set asides, promising to appoint a given group into high positions? How do you prevent those given high positions in government using that power to help their communities?
The seeds of such things are planted in the ideas of the liberal enlightenment. As is the eventual triumph of Islam, a religion that’s riding our religious neutrality straight to domination by the simple ploy of demanding we live up to religious tolerance while not giving us the same because they don’t actually believe kin that. I’m expecting Shariah to come to government Europe within a generation simply because secular state atheism coupled with liberal tolerance gives the west zero immune system for an ideology that uses their liberalism against them.
In defense of Russia, there are a lot of non-conspiracy reasons that Russian conservatives might sound like American conservatives.
First of all, Russia is, for Europe, a pretty conservative country, and therefore its views are going to match up. They have similar concerns, and similar beliefs and similar hopes for the future. Therefore when a Russian says something conservative, it’s going to sound like American conservatives because— they agree, more often than not.
Second, unlike China, Russia is a European, Christian country. Yes they’re orthodox Christian but they are Christians and therefore when they talk about their values it matches up with conservative Christian values. Both groups want Christianity to be more prominent in society and things like gay, trans, and abortion to be if not banned, at least harder to get. When they explain their reasoning, they’re appealing to Christianity and to the Bible and traditional family values derived from Christianity.
Given just how much the two groups share, it’s not really all that odd to find them sounding similar to each other. Heck we can probably find conservatives sounding like AfD, not because German trolls, but because they share a concern about immigration.
The plebs are the legitimacy given so that the deconstruction can take place. And as such they’ve been (mis)educated to accept and even cheer for those things. But I defy anyone who thinks the modern enlightenment regime was a good foundation to imagine those people championing the new order walking through South London at night. Does anyone believe that they’d choose this path for their country? But by dismantling the authorities of their age, they did set us on that path.
Secularism is essentially state atheism as taught and practiced. The state accepts no religion as True, thus all become equally false and thus, starting in elite circles, fewer and fewer take any of it seriously, not only removing all the restraints of moral teachings, but the immune systems against worse ideologies, be they communist or Islamic or other cults.
The ability for people to worm into power but without responsibility means that looting is the order of the day. Often this is done by promising the plebs that some new social arrangements will make them better off, then pocketing the majority of the money. Or they’ll take money needed to repair infrastructure and not fix it.
I just dont think woke is a good word because people essentially took 90 percent of liberalism victories and then shunned the last 10 percent. This is not a call for a total retvrn to feudal landlord systems, the advances in society that liberalism advocated for are based on egalitarian ideas. Most people will still be left leaning if not far left due to the nature of society today. Napoleon did rise after the French Revolution yet France was one of the first countries that made demographic research hell by banning stats for ethnicities.
There is no return to the 90s or the early 2010s in my case. It is either more bioleninism or a post liberal world order, as a betting man, I would bet on the former simply because demographics now are worse.
Well, the problem is that if you simply go back to the top of the hill, all you can do is slide back down. If liberalism in general doesn’t work, you’re just going to end up exactly where we are now, except that it will be “the future” when it happens, and as you point out the demographics would be much worse than they are now. I am unusual here because after thinking about it, I think the “bad idea” might well have been the enlightenment itself, and certainly by th3 time you have birthright plebiscite you’re just going to speed run chewing through civilization to the bottom where the people who vote have no idea how anything works, no desire to learn, and no stake in making it all work.
The Facebook blame for Myanmar sounds a lot like the justification for Trump and Christian Nationalists and MAGA gaining support via social media. It couldn’t possibly be that people were choosing crime-think when given freedom to choose, it must be the algorithm (and you better change it to support the neoliberal ideology or else) or Russia (who somehow manages to look and sound like ordinary white Americans dissatisfied with The Narrative) or literally anything other than “they don’t like us”.
The problem is that you can’t use an algorithm to push things that are not happening. Nor can you get support for ideas that are not at least latently relevant and popular in the base of users. I don’t believe for a second that you could use the algorithm to push Americans to start pushing Buddhist Nationalism— Theres no organic support for that, as few Americans are Buddhist or interested in becoming Buddhist, and even among those who are, there’s no support for the idea of Buddhists controlling the government. There is support for Christianity and Christian Nationalism in America that comes from the bottom up. It’s existed for a while. The entire Pro Life movement was predicated on the idea that God forbids abortion and that Christians should do what they can to end it because God forbids it and God is above government. Opposition to gay rights, while not as successful (so far) runs along the same lines — God forbids it, so we must oppose it. Immigration opposition is likewise organic. If the general public was happy about immigration you simply cannot spread anti-immigrant sentiment among the public. But people see the results so when it pops up on social media, they agree with it.
Repression tends to be a stage in the history of any doomed movement. Once it becomes clear that the ideology itself is failing, those who want to keep the movement alive tend to use repressive tactics and authoritarian techniques to keep the system hobbling along for as long as possible. Which is about what’s happening here.
But the same happened in the decline of other movements as well.
I mean I’m not disagreeing. I think especially in its modern and postmodern forms liberalism has failed nearly as completely as communism has. And as the contradictions become more obvious, the need to reassert control over the public is going to get much worse. We’re in the stage of the fall of liberal democratic politics in which the results of elections are being declared “threats to democracy.” Or where our freedom of speech is so sacred that we’re going to demand the cancellation of people for crime-think, labeling of hate-facts as misinformation or disinformation, and people are considered militant nationalists for positions that their grandparents took for granted.
I’m the same. I don’t consider most of those activities “nerdy” anymore, as they’re so common that I almost feel like calling being into sci-fi or anime or gaming or even fantasy dice games nerdy is a bit much. Especially when the stuff in question is mainstream. It’s almost a stolen valor thing where kids when I was young had to kind of hide their interest in those things only for later generations to claim it even though the stuff is absolutely mainstream and they only like the mainstream parts of the subject.
I’m not convinced that’s a contradiction. The view that tech was good and would make life better was predicated on a bunch of liberal assumptions.
1). That humans in their state of nature were naturally libertines, naturally good, free from hate anger and so on. This is now demonstrated to be false. Give humans free speech and they’ll use it to control other people, to scam and cheat and rent seek, and preach hate and division. Thus the internet essentially ended up doing the opposite of what the liberals thought it would do.
2). That the neoliberal consensus of the WWII era had won decisively enough that it could hold up when people were allowed to choose freely and advocate for their own ideas. It turns out that, when allowed such freedoms, the neoliberal consensus is mostly popular as a luxury belief system rather than as deeply rooted convictions. Things like LGBT+ might be tolerable in very small doses, but they aren’t things that most people actually want normalized. Likewise, while people might diversity in abstract, but will often pay a fair premium to avoid the consequences of diversity.
3). For whatever reason, tge liberals tended to assume that not only were the computer science nerds on their side, but that they would continue to be on their side. It’s not pretty clear that most people in tech are firm capitalists, don’t like corporate telling them what to think, and reject culture war scolding pretty much.
I think a permanent peace, even if it means being a temporary pariah state works better. The constant cycle of terrorism->Israel bombs the shit out of Gaza/West Bank -> temporary truce while militants rearm and reorganize -> terrorism -> repeat cycle serves no one. It’s not even really peace. Peace would mean that Israel could more or less stand down, and not need to put in all the apartheid regime stuff that it does because Palestinians are no longer a potential threat. Palestine could rebuild itself and either become part of a federated state within Israel or a small state perhaps in West Bank that would not be bombed every 5-10 years.
This is where Western interference is causing the problem. Because the Hamas/Fatah movements are never completely defeated, they simply call for ceasefire, and in some future time it starts again. Probably with better weapons and with the lessons learned from this round.
I mean both sides were playing the media game. Palestine did it much better. There were numerous times when the media was shown images of “good Palestinians who just wanted to help”, except that they were often actually active members of Hamas. There were also faked reports where they’d claim freezing conditions when the actual weather in the region was in the 70s.
In a federated system, I’m not sure how much it matters. If three states in the southwest USA voted for the Nazi party, the entire government doesn’t go along with it.
Honestly, I think something like the American Indian reservation system might work. A disarmed population with reasonable control of its own territory might be a decent option.
I hope they do. The frustration of the whole thing is that because Hamas survived and is getting a deal, they’re going to use this plan again. It essentially worked. They’re getting their prisoners released, most of who, are members of Hamas, the Strip will be rebuilt, and they not only get to keep power, but because they have the sympathy of the Arab world, can rearm easily.
At the same time, Israel has essentially capitulated. They get nothing except the hostages. They are also much more hamstrung as to what kinds of action can be taken when Hamas rearms for another round. The propaganda networks are in place, and the Palestinians have learned to play PR rope a dope by making sure that anything Israel does is seen as genocide.
I’d question how well that actually works. The thing I suspect is that much like anything else feeding homeless people would invite more homeless people as word gets around that this particular QT gives out free food.
I’m not sure you could meaningfully enforce a ban on maximally addictive features simply because the entire industry is based on getting, holding and selling your attention. As tge saying goes, “if you’re not paying for it, you are the product.” You can’t really do anything unless you’re going to change the business model. The other option being paid subscription, which to my knowledge has never worked for a social media platform. And absent that, the incentive would be to be as addictive as possible, while avoiding the things the public associates with addictive content. This would be a constant arms race, and likely the social media platforms would win because they can always stay just on the legal side of the line and can deploy new techniques before the regulations can be drafted to stop them.
I think the issue of lost trust has an impact on the park and 3rd space issue. Those places often end up attracting homeless people, criminals, drug users etc. because they’re free to the public and thus nobody can stop them. Which makes nobody else want to really use the space for the intended purpose. And thus when people want a third space that they can be relatively sure is safe for them and their family, the admission charge is a feature, not a bug. The same sort of problem plagues the building of public transit. It cannot go anywhere useful (because people move to good neighborhoods to avoid the kinds of people who ride buses, subways, and trains), and because the public transport itself often invites the criminals and homeless and others. You aren’t going to see either thing take off until the issues creating a low trust society are solved.
I think in some cases it’s why the internet has become the hangout of choice. Watching TV or doing things online doesn’t involve contact with such undesirables or the results of their activities. Buying online is simpler because you don’t have to hunt down an employee to unlock the item you want.
I think it’s a shot in the dark. I don’t see Bibi deciding to go with the deal because he already rejected it, and frankly doesn’t trust tge Palestinian side to really keep the deal. Given 75 years of “Israel signs peace deal, leaves area” and “to the surprise of absolutely nobody, Palestinians have rearmed and are trying to destroy Israel — again” he really can’t make a deal. It’s either an unconditional capitulation followed by military occupation to prevent rearming, or the situation as it existed on 10/6. He knows it, everybody who’s looked at the history knows it. And so I think Trump is offering the deal because he wants to say he tried.
This is my read. In the 1990s it emerged as political correctness, which worked for a while until the term Political Correctness entered the public consciousness, allowing people the criticize the phenomenon instead of the content. You could say “why shouldn’t we be able to say what we really think” instead of “boo, minorities” which allowed respectable people to disapprove of it without being branded as outgroup. Once that happened, it turned out that a lot of people in the main stream didn’t like the idea.
In 2012 it was Social Justice and SJWs. These guys won until people found ways to mock the movement, again, without having to publicly condemn the content of the movement, thus saving face was possible. You can mock the SJW at home in mom’s basement with purple hair scolding you for saying something wrong, or for not being a good enough ally.
Woke is receding because it’s possible again to hate the movement without necessarily hating those the movement is putting forward. And again this makes it appealing to normies who have to be respectable at least in public. Being able to talk about woke scolds and oppose racial and gender set asides without losing your ability to be seen as good by respectable people is the way to the end of wokeness.
It seems to me that really on whole Jered Taylor is sort of right. The key to beating back various forms of progressive politics is to make sure that you have your countermovement be one that normie whites can support publicly without seeming too out of the mainstream and where they won’t be considered racist/sexist/homophobic for saying that out loud.
They’re on the left because they value other coalitions they are in. I’m not suggesting that a person can only be in one group, I can be in the NRA and the Labor bloc at the same time. I don’t think you aren’t doing coalition based politics just because a person might be part of several. It’s just that for a bock to win on an issue you have to get enough potential members of that bloc to make that their top issue.
I think it depends on the brand. Companies that cater to left leaning and left coded things or hobbies will likely continue and maybe double down a bit. Things geared to the general public will probably quietly drop DEI, I expect any company that’s right coded will be shouting from the housetops.
- Prev
- Next
I think the root of the woke mind virus (and a lot of other mind virii that are in the mix as well) is that we’re essentially an immunocompromised society. There’s no lines in the sand that can’t be crossed. The evils always exist, but we’re the polite people who refuse, on the grounds of “being nice” to say anything about them. The urge to cancel people has always existed, we just don’t stand up to them anymore. There were probably always perverts who want access to children. Now we’ve lost the ability to say “we don’t do that here”. There was always a push to try to get sinecures for our own ethnic, religious, or sexuality tribes, but again, there wasn’t any sense that the rest of us wouldn’t push back. And radical Islam has been pushing through the same gap. They want to impose on us, we more or less don’t want to be rude by saying “no, you cannot do that.” They want to impose their view of the world on us, or to be allowed access to children. They want every child to be taught about Islam, but pushing back is rude. And I think until the West regrows it’s spine and decides that it’s ideas are pretty good and it has every right, not only to teach its own religion, culture, and legal theory in its own country, but the right to insist that people who choose to live here abide those beliefs and systems. No, you may not rape 12 year olds. No, you don’t get to throw people out of work for offending you. No, men don’t get to go into women’s private spaces, especially changing areas. No, you don’t get to trans kids in schools.
And until that part is fixed, until there’s enough spine in the west to be willing to impose its will in its own territories, and do so no matter how many ways the carriers of mind viruses try to brand us as crime thinkers, I don’t see it stopping. I think the west made a mistake in removing Christianity from government entirely. Yes it can be annoying, but if my options are “we’ll arrest you for protecting your children from rape, while teaching them to salute th3 gay flag” or “were all Presbyterians now, and if someone wants to hold office they have to be a confessional Christian,” im signing up on the second one. At least they can tell people to stop stealing, raping, and say no to teaching kids to switch genders while hiding it from parents. At least there’s no reason to think that such a society would go woke out of politeness.
More options
Context Copy link