I don't really see what the big deal is?
You are upset that there are people who you would want to work with that you cannot work with? Like who? You need a specific plumber from Guatemala? What specific tasks need to be performed locally that it's impossible to find somebody local to perform equivalent work?
Professionals have been working remotely for a few decades now, you could literally manage a company with somebody without ever seeing them face to face if you wanted. Unless they're in Russia and some other countries that non-nationalist governments have decided to isolate from financial services, what's the issue?
If sharing a physical location with these people is so important for you, have you considered moving? Surely libertarians could get together, pool some money and figure out a way to make their border-free utopia a reality.
PierreMenard
9mo ago
What are you conservative about? Why are you a Republican?
Taylor Swift is an attractive, unmarried, childless white woman who 'puts in efforts to make a comfortable experience for liberals'. Should conservative white parents see her as a model for their daughters?
We can understand Taylor Swift Democrats as men and women comfortable with their birth sex, eager to play the roles traditionally assigned to it
The role that is currently assigned to white women is to not have any children. Many conservatives see that as a bad thing.
PierreMenard
9mo ago
true signal of 'good candidate'
Isn't the point of democracy that all candidates are 'good' candidates?
The alarming headlines about 'Russian bots' and 'radicalizing algorithms' are especially jarring. If 10 years of government work can be undone by a few hours of exposure to a Russian bot or an algorithm, perhaps your 'true signal' is not that true.
'Our glorious democratic education' vs their 'abhorrent authoritarian brainwashing'.
I suppose these media products are not to be taken at face value. Just an nth reinforcement 'you are a good person for not falling for the Eastasia propaganda'.
PierreMenard
9mo ago
I don't disagree with the idea that Christians have a dual loyalty, or a single loyalty to a non-worldly nation.
There are many ways in which being a serious Christian would be detrimental to certain functions. Just because Christian ethics were up to the last century the water of our society's fish, doesn't mean that they cannot violently clash with other ideologies that the ruling class may adopt.
These days Christian bakers get sued over their discriminatory wedding cake practices, Christian nurses get fired over their anti-abortion stance.
I don't know of any serious Christians with political aspirations, but this is essentially the tension in the far-right fringe, between those wanting an ethnostate and those wanting the kingdom of Heaven.
It just seems to me that excluding Christians from leadership positions would be shooting yourself in the foot, as it appears that Christian ethics have somehow correlated with worldly power in the last few centuries.
Perhaps some weird transhumanist society can run on reddit-moderator-tier human material and leave all the Christian baggage behind.
PierreMenard
9mo ago
What a brilliant idea. Perhaps offices of state power should strive to resemble /r/antiwork's mod team.
PierreMenard
9mo ago
What's with the concept 'radicalizing social media algorithms'? This is like that idea that 'Putin hacked the elections'... by putting ads on facebook or something? How can people simultaneously defend democracy and believe that the average person is the cognitive equivalent of a fast food public wifi network?
If democracy is so great, why do we need to ban doctors from posting their opinions online? Why do we need to prevent people from taking horse deworming medication but make sure they get to vote?
If AI is racist, if Silicon Valley companies, the most powerful, data-driven, progressive companies ever, still can't seem to make DEI quotas, then perhaps they have a point?
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Money can make people with guns force other people to take part in a war. It's called conscription or press-ganging.
What is the merit of letting Russia conquer Ukraine?
What is the merit of letting Zelensky eradicate the Ukrainian population? If the US stopped funding Zelensky, the war would probably stop pretty soon, and the massacre of the Ukrainians by their own government would stop as well.
What was the side that marched millions of people into camps to die again?
Nationalist governments like the one in Ukraine or the one in Israel. Somehow you see the issue with governments murdering people but not today?
PierreMenard
10mo ago
It's not the Russian government grabbing 50 years old (or older) Ukrainians off the street to fight for Zelensky and Blinken. Russia is fighting a proxy war against NATO, the EU, the USA, encroaching on its borders, bombing Russian civilians.
Volodymyr Zelensky has demanded Ukrainians living abroad return to fight against Russia or pay taxes to assist the war effort.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Are you comparing the Ukraine-Russian war, a war that Russia started so its apparatchik leadership can LARP as Napoleon, to the holocaust?
No, just asking if you support the ongoing mass-slaughter of Slavic people by your government, which I oppose, as you brought up Slavic people getting killed during WW2.
The "right side" winning WWII means all of that happening why would that be any less necessary now?
Well they were not many good guys fighting in WW2, but they decidedly lost. A broadly anti-Christian Soviet Union took control of most of Europe, and the remainder of the West fell into a system of international banking/corporations which thrives to this day, promoting anti-Christian values like feminism, abortion, unbridled sexuality, consumerism...
There are only 2 ways out, some form of RETVRN (to breeding) or extinction, for a certain type of humans that was the backbone of (Western) civilization.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Explain to me the moral calculus that makes the feminist movement/gay rights/insert your personal modern boogieman here "a very evil agenda" while killing every man woman and child of Slavic, Jewish or Romani herriatage not that.
Why should I explain that when I don't advocate killing every man? Do you support shipping money and weapons to the Ukraine proxy war? Then you support the mass slaughter of Slavs.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Some form of government based on Christian values. WW2 was obviously lost by the good guys. The outcome is the protracted death of (Western) civilization.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
If you live in the Western world then you live in, by far, the most prosperous materially easy, and peaceful period in the history of the human race.
Oh you like peace? So you're a Trump-supporter then? Or do you support the conscription of broader and broader swathes of the remaining Ukrainian population?
So much so that I theorize that most of the political and existential dread people feel is due to our monkey brains not being designed to function in an environment where most people never even come close to having to struggle to survive.
And that's a good thing? Should we get more existential dread?
Risking turning the keystone of all of that, the US, into Syria because people are scared the world is changing and want it to stop or angry girls won't talk to them is mind-boggling to me.
Syria is a fine country. Or was, before Obama. If anything, it's endless desert wars under Clinton, Bushes and Obama that did the most to turn the US into Syria. You must have loved Trump's muslim ban.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Up until about 2020, they've always been staunch conservatives who voted straight ticket Democrat 100% of the time.
Can you give some context on that? What causes that type of voting profile?
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Are you using these with any sort if rigor or is it just evil = globohomo,libs, person who I disagree with,etc etc
Well this is all subjective interpretation, but the point is the same. If your top priority is X, you should vote for a fool gunning for X and perhaps Y, and Z that they have little chance of disturbing too greatly rather than a very competent person running for opposite-of-X.
I think the actual choice is usually a pick between different variations of politicians who claim they want X-lite, and offer proposals that match X-lite, but then immediately compromise or do the opposite of X-lite once in power.
Ah yes only bad people ever suffer during the power vacuum of government system collapse.
People always suffer. Government system collapse can be a good thing if the government system has become too overbearing. This is not a new thing in North-American history.
'Haven't you considered that you too would suffer if the King's rule was upended?' said the Loyalist.
It's funny the way you talk about voters, malcontents, etc. It sounds like you think that a lot of people should not have political rights.
Why can't they vote RIGHT says the respectable, educated, democracy-enjoyer.
NOT THE DEMAGOG, you're only supposed to vote for the candidate that MY global media corporation tells you to!
PierreMenard
10mo ago
What is better, a very competent person enacting a very evil agenda, or an incompetent person attempting to enact a good agenda?
If somehow whoever got into office did exactly nothing, it would still be 100% better than somebody getting into office and continuing existing policy by Biden, Clinton, Bush, etc.
vs just making things worse for everyone
As it stands, bad people are the ones who have the most to lose.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
includes the kind of people who march through Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us.") This is a perfectly good reason to be anti-Trump in spite of his moving the embassy.
How does replacing the alt-right type of people (conservative white Americans) by progressives work out for the Jews? Not so well in higher-ed if you ask Ackman.
Can we say one way or another if bolshevik revolutions have been good or bad for the Jews as a group?
What a timely discussion on this MLK day.
The traditional antisemitic trope of Jews is them being shrewd manipulators, which is not exactly the same as being smart. Ask an antisemite why Jews are over-represented in the Ivy League, and they will probably say that it is because the Jews in academia collude to favor Jewish students over gentiles, helping them cheat and so on.
One could hypothesize that aside from Jews being good at getting into competitive schools through sheer intellectual aptitude, another factor could be that competitive American schools have largely been shaped by Jews. Perhaps Jews made Ivy League schools into schools that would admit a lot of Jews.
elite institutions sought to limit the number of Jewish students a century ago—and how the advent of that quota system has shaped U.S. higher education ever since.
back then, restricting the people who got in was an attempt to thwart a certain kind of ethnic diversity. And today, there are probably unspoken quotas in existence that are meant to enhance a certain kind of diversity.
Here we see some kind of 100-years cycle of antisemitism :
That’s true, although what’s interesting is that the idea of dismissing Jews, of loathing Jews because of some supposed connection to a foreign government, strikes me as awfully reminiscent of the old trope of Jews as clannish and untrustworthy that you saw in the 1920s and ’30s. In the 1930s, the idea was that they’re not trustworthy, they’re trying to lure us into war on behalf of a foreign power. And how is a lot of anti-Zionism fashioned now, except that the Jews aren’t trustworthy, they’re trying to lure us into wars on behalf of foreign powers?
Jews luring us into foreign wars?! Where are all these progressives getting that idea from? Perhaps they just happen to be in charge when billions of dollars of US taxpayer money get disbursed in foreign wars.
“One of my responsibilities as Secretary is determining, on behalf of the United States, whether atrocities have been committed,” Blinken, who is Jewish, said Monday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
He is also dealing with appeals from Ukraine’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky — who similarly cites the Holocaust as shaping his outlook — to do more to stop Russia’s attacks.
What's that story with the golem again? Perhaps they should teach it in Ivy League schools.
I think one deciding factor in the ranking of elites is not necessarily who is smarter, or who is more hard-working, as they are plenty of brilliant, hard-working people that never get into the spotlight, but most importantly who is most capable at conveying that they are the smartest and most hard-working. Something like 'showmanship'?
Historically it seems to me that American Jews were most effective at that one aspect of status-seeking. From the father of propaganda Edward Bernays to the 'Warner' bros (Wonsal/Wonskolaser before Anglicization), Hollywood Mogul Weinstein, the Talented Jeffrey Epstein... It appears to me that Americans who are exceptionally good at media manipulation tend to be disproportionately Jewish. Was Sam Bankman Fried the smartest, most hard-working crypto bro? Probably not, but somehow he had a way with the media.
A similar idea is expressed in the WW2 era concept of 'Big Lie'. Some people at the time seemed to think that Jews had an unusual ability to convince others of things that were not necessarily true (ie they ought to be over-represented in elite American schools). Interestingly, that same concept has apparently been applied to other things since, including the Ukraine war and Trump's elections issues, in a 'reclaiming the n-word' sort of way, perhaps?
Ironically, one who appears in so many ways to infuriate American elites and American Jews seems to have employed some of the same tricks for his rise to power.
“He was rich. He was vulgar. He was a city guy … and the women—business, sex and a guy who loves the attention. You couldn’t beat it.’’ So the tabloid writers used him and their papers thrived. But it turns out that he was using them too. To keep his name in print, to build his brand, to learn the kinds of lessons that have helped him put together a run for the White House the likes of which has never been seen. Talk to some of those tabloid writers now and they can see—with some discomfort—that the seeds of Trump’s celebrity were nurtured in their notebooks.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
That we are in 2024, not 2004 and this Dubya era cause of teaching creation science/intelligent design is as defeated as any political cause can be?
Well we were talking about hypothetically picking between 'DSA and creationists and BAP/lots-of-posters-on-this-forum-style explicitly anti-meritocratic racists'.
I don't see racists as anti-meritocratic, as per the top post, modern racist intellectuals are a pretty diverse bunch :
Indian Bronson, Cremièux and Hanania, all of them supporters of the HBD and "liberal-racist" or "liberal-realist" (still fun that we are talking about an Indian, a Jew and a Palestinian).
Whoever can hack it will find a spot in the racist coalition, no matter where they come from.
abortion. They fear giving right-to-lifers-from-conception even morsel of more power.
Why is killing their own child so central to some people's life? Especially funny in light of recent events. Whether we're talking about beheaded babies or bombed hospitals, a thousand voices will raise in indignation and condemnation. Not to mention the hysteria around people that dared to expose others to their breath.
But the mere suggestion that perhaps one should avoid certain practices instead of murdering their own child. Beyond the pale.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
What's wrong with giving creationists more power? Defending evolution does not seem to be very popular. The top post is about American public intellectual slightly adjusting toward 'HBD' which is in essence the belief that human evolution does not stop at the neck. The Dr Watson position:
he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours--whereas all the testing says not really." He went on, reports the newspaper, to say that "people who have to deal with black employees find...it is not true" that all humans are equal.
Another popular one from a previously resigned Harvard President :
"even small differences in the standard deviation [between genders] will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out [from the mean]". Summers referenced research that implied differences between the standard deviations of males and females in the top 5% of twelfth graders under various tests. He then went on to argue that, if this research were to be accepted, then "whatever the set of attributes ... that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley ... are probably different in their standard deviations as well".
Which political movement is defending these science-based, evolution-grounded positions?
Not to mention the contemporary dualist belief that some people's souls get mismatched to the wrong body and hormones. Nobody ever explains who creates these souls and how this works from an evolutionary point-of-view, but this is apparently the Science.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
The people making the rules and the people bearing the costs of those rules are almost never the same people (the universal example being "child" vs. "adult").
That's a good thing if you've ever talked to a child, you would understand why you don't want to put them in charge.
By keeping formal groupings like this out of law, we ensure that said above-average members have the opportunity to keep more of what their surplus of virtue/intelligence/time preference inherently provides them
That's only a problem for a minority of a minority. By definition, not the concern of the majority of the majority (that is the people who make laws).
having the eugenic effect we're hoping
I'm not hoping for eugenic effects. Perhaps if we're hoping for eugenic effects for a minority group, we would hope that excluding them would incentive the above-average members to break away and lead their group to success... somewhere else.
(i.e. a restaurant that seats blacks with the other customers in a cultural milieu where society at large doesn't like that- having to sit in the back is effectively a tax, since you'll have to spend more money just to get the same experience that whites get just by walking in the front door).
I don't see the issue with that. If they are above-average, then paying that tax shouldn't be a problem to them. They should also be able to understand that the experience they're coveting is a product of the work of a group they do not belong to, that they may not be able to obtain from their own group, and value that accordingly. If they can obtain the same experience from their own group, then what a great bargain for them!
below-average Brahmins who otherwise lost the genetic lottery that shouldn't be in that school anyway. So you'll get better results by being able to exclude them, and if you're going to exclude them for the same reasons you'd exclude the Irish... why the extra rule?
A very simple question of logistics. If you're looking for 10 workers who can lift 50 lbs and you can hire somebody to test 50 candidates for the job, do you have them test 25 women and 25 men, or instead test 30-40 men until you get 9-10 workers and perhaps spend the remaining time looking at a few abnormally large women?
Nothing prevents you from excluding both the Irish and the lower-achieving Brahmins. If the Irish are significantly under-performing and also causing additional problems (disorder, violence, social inadequacy) then you're just saving money in admissions, discipline, remedial programs...
The first is concern trolls being rewarded for taking "is it because I'm black?" seriously
Answer: yes - instead of having a whole ChatGPT-like paragraph of non-committed denial hoping not to get sued.
It seems that we do already agree as you point out that the Western society we live in already has discrimination, just not the 'right' type of discrimination.
It's very hard to guarantee fairness when you're trying to levy taxes this way; that's why the compromise for the last 60 years has been "well then, don't", and why attempts to change this, universally have all been/are all in bad faith.
The compromise has been 'don't discriminate against groups that the post-WW2 globalist consensus has deemed to be special', not really 'don't discriminate' in general. Is there really somebody living who with a straight-face can say that they do not support one form of discrimination or another?
Any progressive not supporting 'safespaces' for queers, POC or women, 'my body my choice' for aborting mothers not antivaxxers?
PierreMenard
10mo ago
I'm simply making the case that discrimination is essential.
In situations where you need to urgently determine whether somebody is trustworthy or not, you will use all available information for this decision, physical markers of age, sex, race, class, employment, attitude, smell...
If your child disappeared suddenly and you were told a female cashier saw somebody take them away, do you go ask the bearded cashier to give you more information?
“X race need not apply” or “separate but equal” and other race-based discrimination that was done at scale and often enshrined in law.
What's wrong with having rules? Nobody is entitled to interaction with anybody else.
Just because you think your kids would do better surrounded by Brahmins than by inner-city Irish kids, doesn't mean you can just force Brahmin families to sign up to your schools. If Brahmins decided that within their own school inner-city Irish 'need not apply', who are you to change that?
It would suck if all the businesses around me suddenly decided that they no longer wanted my business for whatever reason, but that is unlikely.
And perhaps if they did, it would have something to do with my behavior.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Why is discrimination an issue?
Making decisions on what kind of people you are interested in associating with is an everyday thing.
Do you immediately give your banking details to the 'IRS agent' with an Indian accent who randomly calls you?
That's discrimination right here. You used available information to you to make a snap judgment that you would not interact with a certain individual, and you are selectively deciding not to let them accomplish their goals.
There is no civilization without discrimination. Trust is only possible on a local level where you are not interacting with strangers but with people with a known history and known ties to your community, skin-in-the-game.
PierreMenard
10mo ago
Somehow this escaped me but still, why would a 'paper tiger' hit a kid? Probably because the kid did something wrong. Is it worth jeopardizing the only relationship you have with adults who have your best interests in mind over some moderate violence? Even if there is no significant escalation, parents can always simply give up on the child.
'Oh yes I never dissuaded you from getting into 100k in debt for an art degree because you'd break a window over it, remember?'
'Why did I not discourage you from dating this clearly abusive person? What was I supposed to do, hit you?'
'You got yourself disfigured and sterilized and we did nothing to stop you? Well we thought you were all grown-up all along'
PierreMenard
10mo ago
It's a self-solving problem. The deeper the lack of parenting drive across society, the more parents are likely to notice and make connections.
'60% of women who go to college never have kids? 80% of women who graduate with a gender studies degree never have kids? 73% of women who attended more than 5 years of public school have fewer than 2 kids? Well I want grand-children so I know what I need to do'
Some of it was recognized as illegal. Not that it changed anything.
It doesn't really matter if the 'fortifying' of the elections was legal or not. It didn't matter for the Covid lockdowns either. It doesn't really matter if the 'vaccines' work. What matters is that ~nobody would do anything about it, and if they do, they will get J6'd. Or they will be summarily Babbitt'd.
It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you will bring to the courts, the courts will deny your claims and the media won't report on it unless to tar you as a nutjob.
If you want to have free speech, buy your own Twitter and if you want to have justice, build your own nuke-armed country.
More options
Context Copy link