atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
No bio...
User ID: 2162
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
Do you think a different group of counterprotesters would not have cheered Ricky's bloodthirsty comments?
Of course? This is the entire issue---why do you implicitly believe that the videos and articles you shared are representative of all counterprotestors? Just to hammer this home
The video I shared was of counterprotesters cheering for more murder by knife.
The video you shared was of some counterprotestors cheering for more murder by knife.
That's what you apparently feel the need to defend. Is this because you agree with the bloodthirsty counterprotesters? Is this an "arguments are soldiers" thing where, because you share some of their politics, you feel the need to defend them and/or paint my criticism of them uncharitably?
...and I am completely baffled how you are at all reading that I'm defending this. Again, homogenizing your ideological opponents in this way is absurdly sloppy. Seriously, have you not considered that its as invalid to think of "counterprotestors" as one unified group as it is for the other examples you listed?
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
Your post had this:
The events, allegedly in part as the result of some false reporting concerning Axel's identity, led to a number of protests, which led to a number of counterprotests.
Immediately followed by this
Why would you counterprotest a protest against the knifing of schoolgirls?
This is an extremely sloppy way to write if you were just talking about the specific people in your video instead of representative counterprotestors. Furthermore, if you were just talking about the video evidence/Ricky Jones instead of representative counterprotestors, then you were just doing boo-outgroup nut-picking!
I didn't even mention this utterly absurd interpretation of how to think issues of causality with respect policy making since other commentators discussed it lower down:
I suppose, that people would rather talk about that, than about the dead schoolchildren who, but for recent immigration from Africa, would likely still be alive.
Think about the children indeed!
Why would you counterprotest a protest against the knifing of schoolgirls? Well, apparently the original protests were racist.
Really? You can't think of any other reason why the counterprotestors might have felt the need to counterprotest?
Saying that there were counterprotests against the knifing of schoolgirls is an extremely disingenuous interpretation of events. The counterprotests were against violence by far-right mobs. These groups pointed to a bad thing that happened, made some mostly vibes-based links to their pet issue, and then committed extreme acts violence about their pet issue claiming justification from the bad thing. Saying that opposing these group is supporting the bad thing is extremely sloppy. I think someone helping run a website with a goal of helping people move past shady thinking should hold themselves to a higher standard.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
My expectation for anyone who lives in western countries is to be grateful for that privilege, native or immigrant. As far as I am concerned, I am being egalitarian when I expect immigrants to feel grateful; I have the same expectations of them that I do for natives.
This is fair, as long as someone can reasonably earn the right to be treated the same as natives, I don't have any discomfort. For whatever reason, I was reading something different in the original post that on second thought might not have actually been there.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
my shining example of all that we could be is Victorian Britain circa 1850
I'm going to first go even more annoyingly meta: I'm not so happy with this sentence because it seems to be framed as just a personal preference that can't really be justified by more than "I personally like it". Everyone sort of has "inner values" based on such idiosyncratic preferences, but it always feels to me very morally wrong to try to argue with others by nakedly stating them (in harsher words, this is what I called "naked selfishness" before). Rather, you ought to find universal reasons that work for everyone---either extremely compelling "poetry" to convince others to have your same idiosyncratic preferences, or better, links to universal values like reducing suffering. Obviously you have a lot of these universal reasons which are explained more later in the post, so this is a nitpick. Also obviously, I have nakedly selfish reasons for preferring individualistic meritocracy since it gets close to my shining example of something like early 2010's San Francisco Bay Area (before housing availability/infrastructure issues really started kicking in). However, if I can't find universal reasons to support it, I should seriously question whether this preference is reasonable. At the very least, I should never expect them to be compelling to anyone else and keep them to myself.
So now lets get into the universal reasons.
the decay of Britain / Europe / US
I don't have much personal experience with Britain/Europe, but I don't really see much decay in the US, not coincidentally, the country where individualistic meritocracy is the strongest. Particularly in technology, the US continues to produce world-changing breakthrough after breakthrough---AI systems, fracking, mRNA vaccines, etc. Though it's hard to feel this because of relative status effects and short memories, people in the US have more than they ever used to---bigger houses, better cars, more variety at the grocery store, better entertainment, etc. It's also not a coincidence that the technological breakthroughs in the US come from its most individualistic, diverse, and open areas like San Francisco or Cambridge, MA.
I would even say that the most compelling explanation for decay in Europe is actually this attitude, which is far more prevalent there:
only considering those within 100 miles is understandable most of the time, only considering those in your country is basically fine. 60 million is a big pool.
This promotes a sort of closed-mindedness and resistance to change. If you want scientific and technological progress, you need novel ideas. If you want novel ideas, you need to be tolerant of weirdos, immigrants, and outsiders. Conversely, if you close yourself off to the unusual socially, you're also going to lose the drive to create the new technologically---"why do we need more, our village is good as it is!".
Finally, 60 million is not a big pool at all. I'm in math, and the median best mathematician from a region of 60 million doesn't hold a candle to the world's best. Furthermore, agglomeration effects are really important for new ideas so it makes a big difference if one country can concentrate high-performers in one place. I guess if you're making this exception:
Say, those with IQ > 140 if you want something quantitative.
then it's not so bad (though 145 IQ is 3 standard deviations which is on the order of magnitude of 1/1000 people so there are around 10 million of them in the world. This is smartest kid in your year in your school district level, not world-changing genius).
I suspect the majority of people were mostly happier with more structured expectations and a somewhat more rigid social structure. (I would be interested to know how you think things will end up: do you envision a natural slackening of the rat race one day, or a continued and perpetual struggle? If the latter, the resultant technological progress and prosperity may not be worth the candle.)
I think this is the most compelling argument against my point. As far as naked selfishness goes, I much prefer the rat race since it pushes me to achieve much greater things than I would otherwise. At some level, you can justify it in this way: sacrifices we put up with currently to make the future better. However, I think a much better justification is that the people happy with the rigid social structure were those on top. For everyone else, being at the bottom is even worse if you're forever stuck there and there's nothing you can do about it. Having hope and agency over your life is really important for happiness, and if sacrificing the top 10% to stress is worth it to give this to the bottom 90%, then that's a worthwhile trade. I realize though I might just be typical-minding here---maybe as you say the chance to rise makes most people more stressed and unhappy than being stable in even a pretty low place.
Either way, once society is wealthy enough that everyone's non-status needs are met, I expect the rat race to eventually resolve itself by splitting into a million parallel races so that everyone can feel high-status by being in the top 1% of something---some niche video game, sport, academic field, etc.
As the final point:
I also have a strong sense of my people as a people, and I care about maintaining my homeland's culture
Do you have universal reasons why maintaining your homeland's culture (in more of a sense than various minority groups are able to maintain their cultures within US-style multiculturalism) is important? I think there's something around monocultures being bad---like you can argue that my vision of progress coming from all the new ideas from mixing cultures is sort of a dead end since it won't work anymore once everything is mixed and homogenized. Again, however, I think US-style multiculturalism resolves this issue pretty well.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
Look, clearly we aren’t going to agree, because our axioms are too different
Ok, let's try this if you're interested in discussing at an annoyingly meta level: I don't see this belief
that any group feeling on a larger scale than family can only be based on selfishness at best and bigotry at worst
as an axiom, but rather a necessary conclusion from deeper principles justifying morality. Specifically, I 100% agree with the very end of this article
I want to help other people in order to exalt and glorify civilization. I want to exalt and glorify civilization so it can make people happy. I want them to be happy so they can be strong. I want them to be strong so they can exalt and glorify civilization. I want to exalt and glorify civilization in order to help other people.
Scott Alexander of course always says things way more eloquently than I can. The (admittedly extreme) individualism you're calling out isn't an axiom, rather, at our current level of technological development, it's the best way to achieve all the good things---to exalt and glorify civilization, etc. See here and ymeskhout's broader point in the original post.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
Look, I'm operating under the assumption that you guys want more liberal posters here. I'm telling that you contrary to what you guys believe, the reason you don't have so many isn't that liberals don't like hearing views they think are toxic, but rather liberals get tired of the tide of obnoxious argumentation you get here when you either argue for liberal views or become known as a liberal---strawmanning, unjustified personal attacks, and random, derailing accusations of bad faith.
If you read carefully, this is the exact thing that TracingWoodgrains was complaining about. "Unappealing" does not mean "stating values that I find are toxic", it means "obnoxious argumentation that makes it draining to engage, particularly (in this case) the personal attacks and derailing accusations of bad faith".
Therefore, if you actually do want more liberal posters, maybe recalibrate your judgement of the costs and benefits of not moderating these more harshly.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
Sorry, should've explained this more: basically, you're asking for people to shoulder an additional burden for the sole reason of where they happened to be born, something that was completely out of their control. Furthermore, this burden isn't some temporary thing, but forever---the skilled immigrant always has a responsibility to feel grateful and not believe they deserve things natives do and nothing they do over their entire life can change this.
I don't like this unegalitarian implication.
you are following a familiar pattern that reaffirms my observations here and everywhere else
This is actually a great example of a phenomenon I think greatly contributes to moderation issues here. You're rounding me off to a pattern you've seen a lot before---"liberals don't really believe they should have to put up with people who express views that are noxious to them"---instead of noticing that my actual complaint is different: I'm only opposed to the way in which these "noxious" views are being argued. I've complained before that @naraburns is also pretty bad at rounding off recklessly in this way.
I'm perfectly happy discussing with people who's values I think are very opposed to mine as long as those people are actually responding to the points of what I'm saying instead of strawmanning or making unjustified personal attacks (Just to link some interactions with a particularly hostile poster who somehow never ever got moderated for these). Case in point: I'm not saying FC is one of the worst perpetrators because he may or may not be racist or accelerationist or whatever, but rather because he has one of the worst habits of rudely accusing those he's arguing against of saying a billion things they didn't actually say!
All I'm asking is that you actually apply your rules on tone and argument style consistently instead of judging based on rounding discussions off to preconceived notions from your previous experience on the internet.
Are you arguing that "obvious dishonesty" and "or does it just prove that your entire interest in the topic begins and ends with its utility toward bashing the outgroup?" are civil?
Idk, I get the impression that some of you are unhappy about the way this site is going---there have been enough discussions about echo chambers and things like that. Yet you keep refusing to listen to people who tell you the clear reasons why such things might be happing. Totally understandable if you don't take my word for it, but you guys should at least take something from the whole Tracingwoodgrains discussion earlier.
There's a political consensus here and many toxic arguments arguing in favor of the consensus are not moderated. Beyond this current example, I've pointed out before that racism violating "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be" is very often ignored (though somehow the entire discussion where this last happened was memory holed. I can only see the comments in my inbox with all links to the actual thread broken). You even put one of the worst perpetrators on the mod team!
This makes the environment quite unpleasant for people arguing against the consensus so most just end up leaving.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
My brother arbitrarily happened to be born the same parents as me, but that fact plays a much stronger role in our relationship than any other achievements of his.
You continue to use this bad analogy equating interactions with small, <Dunbar number groups with countries of tens of millions, so lets go into more detail here. In your social life you can judge people by all kinds of arbitrary things that made them closer to you. However, you can't do that in professional settings where you're interacting with larger groups of people. For example, if you're organizing a party, it's ok to invite your brother over someone else just because they're your brother. If you're an HR person a big company, it's not ok to hire them for a job over someone else for just that reason.
This is a huge part of the western value of professionalism.
Do you think there's any substantive response to make here besides "please read what I wrote more carefully and try again"? Playing into someone's bad-faith debate games by trying to defend "no, I actually said (blah)" never goes well when they're actively trying to confuse the issue.
It's really not a good look for a moderator here to be employing this sort of tactic given your stated goals. If FCC's reply wasn't violating
Don't paraphrase unflatteringly. Beating down strawmen is fun, but it's not productive for you, and it's certainly not productive for anyone attempting to engage you in conversation; it just results in repeated back-and-forths where your debate partner has to say "no, that's not what I think".
then I don't know what is. But, again, it's your guys' website.
If it turns out the natives are in fact better, does that mean the white supremacists had a point all along, or does it just prove that your entire interest in the topic begins and ends with its utility toward bashing the outgroup?
This is not a reasonable argument that is worth replying to. Please don't reply to my posts---I'm not interested in discussing things with you since it's extremely tedious and unpleasant to deal with this sort of mess of malicious misinterpretation.
This comment makes me vaguely uncomfortable.
On one hand, sure, someone who has such a deep level of contempt for a large percentage of a country's population probably should not be welcomed into that country. However large of a salary they earn, they're not going to be contributing positively to the welfare of people they more-or-less think are subhuman.
On the other hand, immigrants that do positively contribute on net in all aspects of society (i.e. not just monetarily) deserve to be welcomed. From the inside view of an individual person, it's morally commendable to always be grateful for what you have and not think you deserve anything. However, from an outside view, you shouldn't expect that high moral standard from others who do actually deserve the welcome.
And sometimes its just so satisfying to see white supremacist rhetoric about certain groups turned back on them this eloquently. The whole idea of judging large classes of people as subhuman and worthless is absolutely despicable, but sometimes you just want to say, "ok fine, I'm done with this, let's just accept your premise that we should do so. Wow, the 'worthless' groups aren't actually who you thought they were. Look at that, guess it's not such a good idea for you after all".
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
Unfortunately, that conversation was more the exception than the rule, not to mention that there seemed to be an easy compromise resolution that didn't harm either of our conflicting values.
There are definitely enough other posters here that do not produce very good replies.
This is sort of my point: if someone is able to positively contribute to the country they immigrate to, integrate well into the social fabric, be involved with the local community, etc, then it's their country too (I'm not going to use your "house" framing since that manipulatively plays on intuitions about small family groups that do not at all apply to countries of millions). You judge people by their actions instead of where they arbitrarily happened to be born.
Of course someone with OP's absurd level of contempt for such a large fraction of his country's population is at the very least not integrating well into the social fabric. However there are many other people that satisfy all the above requirements that you would arbitrarily exclude to their and your own country's loss.
I wouldn't expect to be treated like a native because I'm not one.
You are explicitly rejecting any sort of meritocracy here---is that actually what you mean to do? It is complete nonsense to have a privileged class of "natives" who through no hard work of their own are forever in a separate superior class that is locked out to everyone else.
(@jeroboam, look how quickly we get someone saying that all immigrants, even the positively contributing ones, should be forever treated as inferior)
People are angry about the immigrants who commit crimes and just make the country a shittier place generally.
It really isn't just this, however deeply I wish it were. I encourage you to try writing something defending skilled immigration on this forum and see what sorts of responses you get.
Let me try to guess what's going on here? There's a really obnoxious bait-and-switch that white supremacists tend to do (it's really important here to emphasize "supremacist"). Everything is at first justified through the lens of something like meritocracy or "master morality ---look at how inferior these examples of other races are, or look how "multiculturalism" is just "slave morality" where the strong are forced to support weak parasites (since Nietzsche is on everyone's mind again from the recent ACX post) .
However, when push comes to shove, it becomes very clear that their true motivation is not any kind of meritocracy or "master morality" at all---it's just wanting the members of the group they're part of to have increased status for the sole reason of having been born into that group. This is of course decidedly anti-meritocratic.
Posts like the OP's are a great way to highlight this contradiction (I tried something similar with this question posted on the old site). If you're actually going to judge some people as superior to others because of their achievement and greatness, no reasonable judgement is going to come out the way white supremacists (and racialists more generally) say it will. It really emphasizes that they have no basis for their positions besides naked, defecting-in-the-prisoner's-dilemma selfishness.
Of course, all the liberals hate the argument because you're judging some people as inherently worth more than others and all the racial conservatives hate it because the judgement is actually by merit instead of what they want: arbitrarily putting the group they were born into on top. See also the Nietzsche article's description (section X) of why everyone gets mad a Richard Hanania despite him being the only actual "honest-to-goodness Nietzschean master moralist".
In summary, think of this as "Ok, Mr. white supremacist, I'll grant you your stated motivation that we should follow some kind of 'master morality' and judge some people as superior and therefore of greater worth than others, let's see where that actually takes us. Oh, it should actually make you sound like Richard Hanania, supporting skilled immigration and all, instead of whatever you are. You really don't have any grounding in your policy preferences besides naked selfishness in favor of your birth group do you?". Whether the OP actually believes that you should rank people this way is less interesting.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
7mo ago
I think I don't have a good enough picture of what harms you see affirmative action as repairing.
I'll try to say this as concisely as possible:
In the steelman justification, the harms are putting less competent people in positions of responsibility because of unconscious biases in their favor. Steelman affirmative action aims to counteract these unconscious biases to make sure that the most competent people are chosen instead. To my great surprise, most affirmative action I've personally seen in professional contexts has been very close to this steelman version, though it is definitely plausible that I've been in very non-representative bubbles.
Also, with steelman affirmative action, your third paragraph should never become an issue. The groups may be de jure favored, but this only counteracts de facto disfavor so the net effect is that of a level playing field. Everyone would see that they're just as worthy as any other group.
There are still however very good arguments against even steelman affirmative action Calibrating favoritism to exactly counteract biases is extremely difficult practically and especially politically. Maybe our current institutions are so incapable of fairly trading off welfare between various groups that even attempting it is a bad idea. In some sense, it's also going for "good" ends with "evil" tools---for the sake of achieving meritocracy, you are, at the bottom of it all, judging people in a hereditarian way. This usually has unexpected negative side effects and should always make one nervous.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
8mo ago
@Felagund @07mk and everyone else arguing with me that anti-meritocratic views are more common on the left than on the right in the US. Here's another very explicitly hereditarian comment. "Aliens have a fundamental quality that makes them unable to be directly compared to belongers, and it's that they're aliens." is pretty damn extreme!
I really want to keep emphasizing how often such points come up when you discuss skilled immigration. Note also the support such views have from vote counts.
There are important things that are much more difficult than just keeping the lights on. For example, there are extremely high skill-ceiling jobs where extreme competence leads to dramatically greater positive impact---the 100x programmer, entrepreneurs, academic research, etc. The top performers are so rare in these fields that no country has enough; every country could benefit by getting more.
If you want to live in a country that just focuses on maintaining its current standard of living without improving, developing new technology, creating anything great at all, then sure. You can just accept all the extreme suffering that happens even among the rich in developed countries.
The impact of rejecting skilled immigration is nowhere near the same as that of implementing DEI
Finally, how are you making this comparison? Here's a great article on the impact of skilled immigration in the US. You can even see here the impact from rejecting just one single person . There's nothing caused by DEI even close to matching this.
I mean, there's another pretty huge assault on meritocracy in how hard skilled immigration is---even IMO medalists have a hard time immigrating to the US. Anyone upset about the impacts of DEI on competence should also be upset about this.
Do you disagree with that?
Given all the complaints people have made here and in other places, the SAT data etc, I can't disagree that this likely seriously goes against value of the most qualified person getting the job in lots of cases.
However my experience in all highly-selective settings I've personally been in has been that DEI/affirmative action policies in practice didn't actually do this. Specifically, members of the groups that benefited from it were not on average less competent than those that didn't. On particular group of affirmative action beneficiaries, women in math, were actually consistently more competent on average (specifically they were completely absent from the lower tail in competence).
It lined up exactly with the steel-man justification of affirmative action---that it was a necessary corrective to un-meritocratic biases. I can definitely believe that this doesn't hold in less selective settings, but it still makes me skeptical about the true magnitude of its material impact on meritocracy. Actually, I wish people here would talk more about personal experience with anti-meritocratic outcomes of DEI of just focusing on whatever cherry-picked, hot news story happened recently---studies/good statistics > personal experience > media reporting
Meanwhile, my perception of the racist right is that it's not the largest, and in large part online
Conversely, I'm not just focusing on skilled immigration as a hypothetical here. I've had many very competent friends (including two literal IMO medalists!) who have had to leave the country because they couldn't get work visas. The anti-skilled-immigration policies that forced them out seemed to be a direct consequence of the---I'll use a slightly different word here to be more specific---hereditarianism on the right (which they're doubling down on if you saw the end of JD Vance's acceptance speech when he started talking about immigration and national identity). Sure, there are a lot of crazy extreme policy preferences online that don't have a chance of being implemented, but the underlying hereditarian ideals really do cause significant material harm.
Of course neither is good, but we don't get to pick none of the above.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
8mo ago
This is extremely valid criticism so please make it---it's very important to police the extremists even when they're on your side after all. To speculate, I think a lot of the US left was a little arrogant that most of the crazies who would shoot a politician were on the other team (despite the congressional baseball game shooting earlier...). I think people popularizing hyperbolic rhetoric like equating Trump to Hitler should take some minor amount of blame for this, especially in light of the meme that the first thing you should do if you build a time machine is go assassinate Hitler.
This was a very enlightening comment, thanks.
However, I think there's a very good reason people think of used-car salesman lying as reflecting much more poorly on character than lawyer lying. The used-car salesman style demonstrates sloppiness with and disregard of details---this is a huge red flag if you want your leaders to have any sort of ability to understand technical or scientific questions. Conversely, being able to pull off lawyer-style, technically-true lying is a great demonstration of being good with details.
Lawyer-style lying is never going to lead to travesties like sharpiegate, which actually harmed the ability of the National Hurricane Center to function as a scientific organization. This sort of thing is very dangerous if you want government policy to accurately reflect reality.
More options
Context Copy link