Tanista
2hr ago
Except that non-dominant ethnic citizenship was already a thing. Jews, for example, could be citizens. The "branch grafted on the tree of Israel" model was a thing.
What is new now is that people will simply reject the centrality of the "native" ethnic group and the idea that there needs to be a dominant "trunk" of "native" citizens. Instead the claim is that there's no coherent complaint if London is majority non-English because those are citizens. This is not a thing past cultures would accept, but the idea of a non-German/Englishman being a citizen and having the rights of citizens is not new.
In any case, if it's been the case for the entirety of the current iteration of the state in places where the state has fallen and been reconfigured multiple times (Germany) it's still radical.
Tanista
2hr ago
Karate is basically worthless.
Unless you're generational talent Georges St-Pierre.
Tanista
4hr ago
But more to the point, I think you are not speaking the same language of the right. They see the granted citizenship as an entitlement; not a right.
Does anyone think that an ethnically English Aussie granted UK citizenship would fall under the same danger of being deported as a Pakistani for these people? Or an East German from non-German lands? Or do you think that these nationalists would consider it equally legitimate to strip these groups of citizenship?
Of course not. Citizenship is still a right, what's being debated is whether it is a particular ethnic right (for Jews in Israel, Germans in Germany, etc.) and thus any foreigner granted citizenship is not a "real" citizen in the same sense that they are and can be disenfranchised.
Given that naturalization of non-ethnic majority peoples predates these waves of mass migration, it is a redefinition of the term. And it is radical.
Tanista
6hr ago
I think deporting millions of citizens is more extreme than passing legislation citizens can repeal (in countries that may not have the same tradition of strong free speech protections as America) is different from repealing the right to vote for millions.
In any case, this has already been answered: no, extreme left-wing actions would be far left, if the media was inclined to use that label. The media declining to do so doesn't make them not far left, nor does it change that certain ethnonationalist policies are also far right.
Tanista
6hr ago
May be in part people hearing what they want to hear, e.g. "they're gonna make the Boriswave go away". But might also be a deliberate thing. It can help to not appear radical, even if you believe that the average person wants the outcome of radical policies.
What was asked was whether they have policies that restrict civil rights (this justifying the tag of far right) and they do. It was OP who set that as the criteria for far right and so the Afd is far right, given how far out of the Overton Window disenfranchising millions of people who have been citizens for decades or even generations now is.
You could say that the lax border policy is far left and never called such. But that doesn't mean this isn't far right.
I didn't say mass deportation of e.g. recent asylum seekers and migrants. Remigration is the deportation and denaturalization of citizens who are not of the main ethnic groups in the country.
If that isn't a violation of someone's civil rights nothing is. There's good reasons for citizens to consider this far right.
Tanista
17hr ago
or want to revoke civil rights from their opponents?
Yes, it's called "remigration".
Tanista
1d ago
Except we have America as an example. I can believe that Europeans just have a moral attachment to the welfare state. Plenty of American elites resisted it and do want to cut it yet cannot because of the public outcry
Hell, even in Europe Labour wanted a minor cut to the winter fuel allowance and it was public revolt from the people who benefited that forced a U-turn.
Tanista
2d ago
instead you are voting on the choice between approximately two menus that have been written for you by, indeed, rich, mostly white, intelligent and educated net tax payers
Why are the net taxpayers interested in a massive welfare state that redistributes wealth and is driving many Western countries off a fiscal cliff? Do you think if they woke up tomorrow and decided otherwise, the welfare state would vanish?
It's not clear to me that despite all our advancements in public education and technology that the modern average person is more educated and intelligent than the average person eligible of voting in the late 18th early 19th century.
Probably not, education is overrated today I think. The idea that you're going to bring everyone up to the level of a highly selective slice of the population is akin to believing you just need to put books in the houses of poor or dumb people and they'll be on their way to performing like the children of university professors.
It would help if people weren't purposefully being educated wrong, as a joke, but there are diminishing returns.
When the history books are written, the black muslim Gambian will be a white christian MAGA chud.
It won't be in the history books at all. But the miniseries "inspired by true events" will have Ben Foster or some other actor good at playing unhinged creeps as the closeted, internet poisoned killer.
Though I suppose those are the history books now. Is the average person's opinion of Tonya Harding going to be shaped by a biography, or by the Margot Robbie film?
But why? What’s in it for me?
You don't have to take migrants at all. I don't think there's anything immoral about being Japan. Maybe things would be a bit slower (though recent events in Canada and UK have proven problematic for the Max Immigration == Growth thesis so there're clearly diminishing returns) but that's a tradeoff a reasonable person can prefer. Practically, I don't think it's likely to happen but you can want that.
Even if you did close down the borders now though, something has to be done to digest the large numbers that have already been taken.
I'm consistently surprised when a comment gets AAQC'd. No idea what unites them.
I think I'm up to six now and it's really only one of those - about the Islamic relationship to the Bible and critical scholarship - would I have thought of as offering something insightful to posters that they wouldn't have already run into regularly on this site (helps that there aren't a lot of Muslims) and even then I was a bit dissatisfied with it and how anemic the sources were.
But then, it was a comment in response to a post that was also good enough to crosspost to substack so maybe that's why I was feeling a bit inadequate.
Do I believe that Japanese Americans and Somali Americans and Heritage American are going to become behaviorally identical or even broadly the same within America? No. Do I think a selective immigration system (it's more selective for some than others) can pick people who would be much closer to some tolerably American orientation? Yes.
In this particular case we're talking about a certain sort of ideological hostility towards the legacy population and culture and this is strongly encouraged by a certain faction within these countries. I can see a world where Somalis continue to underperform (as they do elsewhere) but someone like Ilhan Omar wouldn't dare go on TV and parrot the talking points she does cause the populace just wouldn't stand for it.
There are people who just hate the kaffir for sure, but a lot of people are essentially striving conformists who are taught that this is the appropriate stance to take towards America, that essentially all brown migrants should behave as if they have the same right to ambivalence about the national project as the Foundational Black Americans, as Tariq Nasheed calls them. Maybe certain people would be tribal in any context, but there is a world where even rational tribalistic impulses would suggest you shut the fuck up about the plan to dissolve the old status quo and beat your racial enemies and be more American than the Americans.
That is not some given. That is not a fact of life. It's a product of a national divorce between red and blue legacy Americans, with the children being told they can pick a side.
The degree to which stopping this makes people Americans in their hearts is debatable because I just don't know how to quantify that from your post (one could argue that many whites are not American in their desire for socialism and welfare). I think it would certainly be an improvement.
Tanista
7d ago
Why give more heat towards someone making fun of the LGBTQ+ community in comparison to say, someone being underpaid at the company or not getting the right amount of maternity leave?
The law forbids one, but not the other.
That's it. I imagine, in France, it would be a significantly bigger problem to deny people their benefits, fire them arbitrarily, etc.
and the hatedom for the prequels at the time was worse than the hatedom the sequels got.
It was wall to wall, while the Sequel Hate became polarized like everything else today. It became another pseudo-political thing where the sides also got associated with tribes.
Ironically, I think this is why everyone feels the sequels discourse is more toxic (putting aside recency bias).
The prequels got so much hate there was really no point in arguing. If you liked it, you put up with it or ignored it. And if you were a kid you likely didn't give a shit. Sure boomer, the lightsaber fights are too twirly. The hate was also pointed at cast and crew who were either totemic enough to be able to not care (Lucas) or it was awful for (Lloyd) but it wasn't as bad for fans.
The sequels hate is much more evenly split (especially since even pro-Sequels fans may hate one of Abrams or Johnson) and no one can really triumph. It's turned into a bunch of warring tribes who turn their fire on each other constantly. It felt like there was actually something to play for so it became even more bitter. You add in the culture war stuff with "the Force is Female" pivot and the reactionary counter-attack and LucasFilm's possibly well-meaning attempts to correct for past abuse by coming out strongly against chuds in a way that seemed pretty self-serving (it happened when their shitty shows were getting bad reviews) and it became just like any other culture war topic with the same heat and long-term bitterness.
resists the charms of a beautiful woman
I mainly waved off complaints about the male gaze in this series but, if this is the book I'm thinking about, I distinctly remember thinking "I just don't need to know whether an immortal, god-like Faerie Lady is vajazzled or not". It was getting a bit much, even for peak-hormones me.
I didn't read anything past Skin Game and that somehow stuck with me for a decade.
Tanista
8d ago
Isn't it also a trope in Rand? The infinite energy generator in Atlas Shrugged?
Well you see what a thankless task it ended up being for Lucas.
Plenty of noob directors have been fumbling existing franchises with no problem recently, despite the risk of backlash. It beggars belief that nobody wanted to take a chance.
The union thing sounds more plausible. The other thing may be that Lucas probably aimed for directors of his generation/people he respected while Disney specifically sought out young, pliable talent. Those people would have more options and might not like to be caught between Lucas and the fans.
But Disney Star Wars was able to get Ron Howard though so maybe no one wanted to work under Lucas? He doesn't seem like a Tiger Mom Producer (he handed over ROTJ and ESB and they're widely considered good) but it is possible no one wanted to take over something he'd be storyboarding for years.
Tanista
9d ago
How much of this is just a function of people who saw the prequels as kids imprinting on the films at an early age, and enjoying them despite their uneven quality?
Partly that.
But part of it may be that but a lot of it is just that the term "prequels hate" can mean the films or the setting.
A lot of people hated the films for the way they handled certain characters and plots or because they felt the CGI was overdone. But that is not the same as hating them as settings.
Many fans were willing to take the bit of the films they didn't like in exchange for a living Republic and Jedi Order and Republic and all the stories you could tell with them
So a lot of people have more fondness for the "prequel era" because that stuff also included Republic Commando, The Clone Wars, etc.
That audience is younger and so has gained more power and influence over time. Especially since the attempt to mainly cater to the OT-setting fans after the LucasArts sale was a huge disaster, partly because they confused Prequel Film Hate for New Worldbuilding Hate.
I wonder if we won't see the same thing happen as the kids who grew up with the sequels grow up?
We might. The problem I see is that there's almost no consistent throughline in these movies and their setting is basically the OT setting but worse. But maybe the books are cool. I couldn't bring myself to check.
Tanista
10d ago
Rent control doesn't work. And yet...
Here a false doctrine is arguably more useful for the state (or the people who run the state) than a true one. If a doctrine is true and the issue resolves itself it's no longer a lever.
If a doctrine is false it will continually contradict reality and will require constant government intervention.
but having the same old argument where you start out by pretending that Israelis and Palestinians were living in peace and harmony until Oct 7th and then Hamas attacked out of absolutely nowhere
But this isn't the apologetic position.
The Israeli apologetic position is that they should be allowed to wreck Hamas and Gaza now precisely because things have not been harmonious and Palestinians willfully destroyed a dissatisfying but functional equilibrium meant to minimize their suffering (and the hit to Israeli PR) so fuck them.
The line is "they could have made Gaza a paradise but chose rockets" not "Gaza was a paradise and then the Fire Nation attacked".
Neither side actually defends the view that things were fine. The point is they're bad because of the other side and it's time to give up on pretending they'll ever be good with them still in the picture.
Because you could have done what all more moderate parties say and say something to the effect of "mass deportations of illegals or refugees"?
More options
Context Copy link