Tanista
3d ago
Highlighted by a Lebanese rapper tired of being accused of cultural appropriation
The Palestinians have played the game right. Continued defection when cooperation is externally imposed by greater powers, promising violence in arabic and pleading innocence in english, lying to internal stakeholders to keep momentum going.
Let's grant their strategy has worked. What I'm then curious about is: why wouldn't it have been better to go even farther? Take whatever deal Clinton was trying to organize and then defect later from a stronger position?
It's probably just the hyper-successful advertisement anime? I was into Yugioh, but I was also into DBZ and other such shows and their tie-in products.
Seems like a lot of black American nerds are also deep in the same medium.
Probably also a generational thing: lots more older hwhite nerds as a proportion.
As a civilian or soldier I'd want my people back so we can go lick our wounds and hope the next cycle is after I'm dead or past conscription age. As a leader...I don't know. Stay, kill more, try to suffocate Hamas as much as possible.
Yeah, eventually Gaza will forget what happened and the cycle will begin again.
There's no reason to frame what happened as Gaza forgetting (as opposed to jihadis simply trying again), except that it undermines your point. People who continually talk about overturning or avenging a crime done against them almost a hundred years ago are not suffering some sort of cyclical memory wipe.
There's strong evidence that both Jews and Palestinians can hold on to a grudge and ruminate on past injustices. And understand basic cause and effect.
American and Western public opinion of Israel will get worse due to a growing Muslim population and an anti-racist younger generation.
Tanista
4d ago
These are corrupt, evil people who don't want to get their crotch blown off by a cell phone.
If this was the case the October 6th status quo was perfect for Hamas. And yet...
This is a particularly bad war. Neither side is able to win. Israel can't defeat all its enemies because whenever enemy deaths get too high, Israel loses the support of Europe and the US.
This situation will only get worse due to demographics. Makes it hard to see postponing the war as a good thing.
To use a left-wing example (since the anti-colonialist movement influenced a lot of the rhetoric): you don't want to be playing into ethnic competition that allowed divide and rule since it won't work for you the way it worked for the white man.
This is basically what Lourde seems to be drawing on to justify claiming that treating groups like black lesbians as non-central is some great betrayal of feminism. This argument is much less unconvincing on its face when applied to some state trying to maintain a hierarchy of ethnic groups.
Tanista
6d ago
as we see even today with the "burn it to the ground" mentality of various anti-capitalist, "woke," or otherwise revolutionary types. ...
But there are purists out there, whether by naiveté or aspiration, who either believe or at least aspire to believe that what would really be best, is total independence from the all the pressures imposed by society.
Sure. "Anyone" is too strong. These sorts of optimists exist.
I guess my take is that this sort of hope is like one of those strange particles that exist for rare and fleeting moments. Like those who think they're going to turn Seattle into an autonomous zone or Occupy was going to reshape all society: they get overtaken quickly by events and more pragmatic/ruthless people.
It may be the first step for the movement is to question norms. But college kids need some guidelines when there's a he-said, she-said. Workplaces need rules. Someone got abused (or "abused") by a famous man and needs to make sense of that. There needs to be consequences for legal yet unethical behavior.
Liberty from both government and society (as anything other than the privilege of the few) isn't a thing. Sooner, reality will force you to pick. In fact, destroying norms forces you to default to the government to enforce rules so you already picked.
There may have been people arguing that shame was all socially constructed but that certainly didn't drive the MeToo movement. Because none of that shit would have been helpful.
Tanista
6d ago
so the "first opportunity" isn't any time soon.
Exactly. The NDP has refused to go along with the Conservatives bringing down the government for a while now. Instead, Singh just constantly said Trudeau had to go but won't vote to kick out the Liberals.
Then, all of a sudden, after Trudeau resigns (Freeland has to play a role here) and prorogues Parliament, Singh is suddenly on-board when...he can do nothing cause Parliament is suspended for months until the Liberals pick a new leader.
The cynical explanation is that this has little to do with Trump: the NDP knows they're utterly done due to backing the Liberals for so long and Singh deliberately ran out the clock so he could get his pension.
In the 1960s/1970s, feminism and the hippie movement decoupled sex from marriage on the view that this was liberating individuals from the shackles of social opprobrium. That doesn't seem to be wrong, prima facie*; the idea that my community should have any say in my sex life seems like a pretty obvious violation of liberal (and libertarian) thinking. "Behind closed doors" wasn't even part of the equation--the sex and nudity of that era was often quite public!
I agree with your final conclusion but that's why I don't see how small-l liberalism necessitates - even reading on the surface - the elimination of social opprobrium? In fact, that is clearly not what's happened and it's not what anyone actually wants to happen.
Your community has a say in your sex life because your community will bear the costs of enforcing violations of a notoriously hard to prove nature (when the violation is not the act of having sex itself). Tell-all articles about degenerate celebrities, for example, are written with the expectation that society as a whole will make some judgment and enforce consequences where the criminal justice system cannot.
Given how large some of the gaps are or were, it's inconceivable that quotas are never going to be better than doing nothing.
Especially if the blank slate is true. Then one can argue for maybe a limited quota system (for a fixed time period) to remedy discrimination, under the assumption that whatever gains are made will continue when the original barrier is smashed and a self-sustaining population of female /minority X is formed and the stereotype threat/unfriendly environment is gone.
So long as that bastion remains unconquered, the armies of the left will continue to sally forth to attack western institutions by claiming “disparate impact means injustice”. I was talking to a friend and complaining about diversity quotas. He dismissed it as “probably worth it — after all how many black men work in the city’s CBD?” Such an argument can still not be rebutted in public because the answer remains beyond the pale.
Yeah. Sunny Hostin is broadly considered to be a partisan hack and not a particularly smart one, but I felt I was talking crazy pills when I saw people acting like Coleman Hughes schooled her on colorblindness.
I didn't think Hughes was convincing in answering her question: what if a colorblind system ended up with racial inequities?
Hughes doesn't really have a good response because, in practice, it'll play out as it has: when "something special for the Negro" doesn't work something more special will have to be done. Under the inertial theory of racism you clearly didn't act enough on the object to change its path.
It usually doesn't go much better. I remember Yarvin being stymied by Ben Burgis just straight up refusing to grant that there was any reason Scandinavian politics wouldn't work in Haiti. Very little in what I've heard from Burgis impressed me, but he beat Yarvin cause he could state his position and Yarvin was clearly scared to.
This attempt to row back to a colorblindness that doesn't have to answer these questions simply cannot work when it can't deal with this basic challenge besides sputtering platitudes. In fact, precisely because everyone has gotten so good at cataloguing racial progress in the hopes that the various gaps will close and they can get the good news out first. You'll always be subject to the charge that there are clearly places were race has more explanatory power than class
So you have to pick a side: woke or the racists.
(This, I suspect, is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali accepted the Lord Jesus Christ into her heart. Some people seem the problem coming as the right gets more anti-woke and many of the right wingers outside the center just bite the bullet.)
At the same time, Taylor is still wrong. Because it's not about "being near your own people". It's about being near white people. Black and Hispanic people also migrate towards white areas. High trust societies rock.
Conservative Muslims in Europe, for example, prove Hanania's point that people move for economic reasons and not just purely identarian ones,sure.
But do these groups mainly move to live amongst white people or do they live amongst their own? You can have all of the benefits of a Western society while making it more like yours if you can have your own neighborhood/community embedded in a high development country.
You don't have to, but many janitors do happen to be minorities.
The point is we didn't need a diversity programs to make this happen.
Maybe they need communication operators and support staff. They think they can make quota by getting some girls. I don't know what goes into firefighting. Yes, yes, it could be the woke mind virus and probably is to some degree. I don't think Marin County Fire Dept's program is burning LA at the moment. This was my main objection to the framing in the parent.
I mean...sure. If your argument is that they did not categorically refuse to hire while male workers but instead showed a preference for non-whites,to the point of quotas (what happens when they don't fill their quotas and have more white men than they can use? They're not going to "literally refuse to hire" those excess wypipo?) and that it probably was driven by wokism...then I guess we have no disagreement.
I won't defend WhiningCoil's maximally uncharitable statements, but that's really the only set of charges this sort of argument is a defense again.
we don't want to discriminate, it's just to tap in to new demographics"
And then, when the untapped population of gay hijabi prodigies who were clearly being held back by racism don't show up when the barriers are pulled down, the finger has to be put on the scale.
Blind auditions, as they became known, proved transformative. The percentage of women in orchestras, which hovered under 6 percent in 1970, grew. Today, women make up a third of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and they are half the New York Philharmonic. Blind auditions changed the face of American orchestras.
But not enough.
American orchestras remain among the nation’s least racially diverse institutions, especially in regard to Black and Latino artists. In a 2014 study, only 1.8 percent of the players in top ensembles were Black; just 2.5 percent were Latino. At the time of the Philharmonic’s 1969 discrimination case, it had one Black player, the first it ever hired: Sanford Allen, a violinist. Today, in a city that is a quarter Black, just one out of 106 full-time players is Black: Anthony McGill, the principal clarinet.
The status quo is not working. If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks. Blind auditions are no longer tenable.
Tanista
11d ago
If wildfire firefighters are primarily white, male, and have shit wages why would it not make sense to target other demographics to fill the ranks?
Why would it?
Being a janitor is a job with shit wages. Do you have to go target minorities to take the position?
It seems like a pointless discussion anyway: the fact that it's too white and male implies that it's just the usual thing. I can see racial diversity but some jobs probably should be have gender skews.
Tanista
11d ago
I mean they literally refuse to hire white male firefighters. People voted for that. Like this isn't their first wild fire. Their priorities are unfathomable.
People vote for all sorts of reasons. When Californians had a direct vote on things like AA they rejected it
They probably built more housing. Good for them.
I don't see how this matters to the argument about what's driving Canadians.
Tanista
12d ago
Trump and Tom Cotton performed hypothetical violence by suggesting sending in troops/national guard, quite fascist. Direct and tacit support for lawlessness and chaos on the streets though? Nope.
Canada turned racist because their newcomers were subcontinental...If Canada had opened their borders to Mexico and Vietnam instead of India, Trudeau would still have a job.
Canada already had a bunch of "subcontinentals". Sure, the proportion got worse but terms like "Bramladesh" predated the recent wave of temporary foreign workers. There is a general sense that immigrants have gotten worse, but this is true within the same group.
Canada's biggest problem in terms of generating populist backlash is that it has the worst housing crisis in the G7 and everyone wants to/has to live in the same few places. You can't drop those amounts of people into such a market without massive backlash.
People hated it when it was the Chinese middle and upper classes competing with them for housing and their hate grew proportionally the more people they had to compete with. They'd hate Mexicans too.
That's probably why the preference cascade has been so total: talk about culture and you get suppressed as a racist. Housing? Everyone gets it. No amount of gaslighting or talking will change reality.
Incredible that being a nerd has enough cachet that the richest man in the world wants to be one, but apparently not enough for him to remember the "well, ackshually" part of the stereotype.
More options
Context Copy link