naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
I've never been to Baltimore myself, so I have exactly one Baltimore story.
A family member of mine is really into road trips and camping--not quite the "hashtag vanlife" sort, but he has been to all 50 states, driven up to Alaska, visits all the national parks along his routes, etc. He's always the family member to play the "every place has good people and bad people" card when people start talking about good or bad places; he is prone to smugly defending this by pointing out that, yes, whatever city you're talking about, he's probably actually been there, and no, you probably haven't.
In all his many travels, the only place he's ever had a problem was Baltimore. I want to say it was in the last year or two; he stopped for groceries in Baltimore--it wasn't even a destination--and had his window smashed in. He'd left a CD wallet (remember those?) on the passenger's seat of his car, and that was apparently sufficient inducement. I have a hard time imagining why someone would smash a window to steal 30 CDs in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty Two, but then--I have a hard time imagining why someone would smash in any car window that was not, say, between them and a dying person or animal.
Of course, this family member is now quick to point out that lots of people get their windows smashed in, say, San Francisco, too, and that his one bad experience shouldn't be taken as an indictment of a whole city. But the fact remains: Baltimore is where it happened.
There are a lot of places I will not go for any reason short of, maybe, a family member's wedding. Baltimore and San Francisco are thus on the same list as China and Mexico. "But there are amazing things to see there, and amazing people to meet!" Indeed, but there are safer places to go, equally filled with amazing things to see and amazing people to meet; I could spend my whole life traveling to amazing places that are not crime warrens or failed or totalitarian states, and still never get to see them all. So why in God's name would I choose the risky ones?
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Speak plainly, please. Particularly for a top level comment, this is too low-effort. (What you should have done is spelled out the parallel you have in mind, and explained why you think it is so obvious.)
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Are you seriously saying that your default assumption is to assume that counterprotestors would cheer the comments if they heard them?
No. I'm saying that the counterprotesters who were there for the comments, cheered the comments.
I don't see any reason to engage you on what you imagine some hypothetical group of counterprotesters would or would not do. My post was primarily concerned with what the actual counterprotesters in the actual video did. Why do you keep trying to talk about imaginary things, instead of engaging with the factual events as actually depicted in the evidence? It takes no cynicism at all to notice the crowd of counterprotesters cheering on the incitement to "slit their throats."
You've moved the goalposts far enough now that it seems clear you've conceded that your original criticism was baseless.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Do you think a different group of counterprotesters would not have cheered Ricky's bloodthirsty comments?
Of course?
Why would you believe that? Do you have videos of other counterprotesters listening to Ricky's comments live, and not cheering?
why do you implicitly believe that the videos and articles you shared are representative of all counterprotestors?
Because that is the evidence available to me.
The video you shared was of some counterprotestors cheering for more murder by knife.
Indeed! I do not have a video of every single counterprotester doing anything, because they weren't even all in the same place. But the rule is "Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible." Not "Don't post about any groups."
I wonder, if I asked you what Catholics believe, whether you would tell me something about the holy trinity, or whether you would respond, "how should I know, I haven't got time to ask every single one of them!" If you think I should speak only and ever of highly specific individuals, and never of groups of any kind, like... too bad? And if you think that it is somehow a violation of the relevant rule to ever speak of groups of any kind, then you should read the rule more carefully. Either you have developed an extremely idiosyncratic view on generalization, or you are being deliberately obtuse in furtherance of whatever end it is you think you are pursuing by doggedly insisting on the badness of my post.
Of course I am speaking somewhat generally when I say "counterprotesters." Maybe some of them would not cheer on additional knife crime. But the ones in the video didn't hesitate to cheer at all, so far as I could tell. So clearly, those are the counterprotesters I'm talking about: all the counterprotesters who cheered, along with any others who would have cheered, had they been present. Those who did not or would not cheer, clearly are exempt from my criticism; the criteria of the criticism do not apply to them. But I have no evidence that any such counterprotesters exist.
...and I am completely baffled how you are at all reading that I'm defending this.
I honestly can't think of any other reason why you would continue to level spurious, inaccurate, and just generally bad criticisms at my post.
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?
I have considered it. It is not invalid, or sloppy, or whatever else you continue to insist about it. You're just wrong, repeatedly, and weirdly committed to staying that way. If it's not because you feel some affinity for the counterprotesters, then the most charitable alternative explanations I can think of are sufficiently unkind that I won't speculate further on their likelihood.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Using alternate accounts to post things that might otherwise violate personal OPSEC rules requires moderator approval?
Correct. See the rules page:
We strongly discourage people from making alt accounts without good reason, and in the absence of a good reason, we consider alt accounts to be bannable on sight. Alt accounts are almost exclusively used for mod evasion purposes and very rarely used for any purpose that helps the community; it makes moderation more difficult and it makes conversation more difficult.
If you do feel you need an alt account (most commonly, if you're a well-established user who wants to post something that can't be linked to their public persona), please ask the mods.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
I think you're just using that as a gaslighting tactic because you enjoy being manipulative.
Do you understand how this kind of direct personal attack fails to advance the foundation? This is unkind, uncharitable, needlessly antagonistic, contributes nothing of substance to the conversation, and just in general does not contribute to an atmosphere of open discussion.
You are not required to agree with others. To the contrary! Disagreement is an important part of what we do here. You are not even required to be pleasant or agreeable. If you demolish someone's argument, they might very naturally be upset by that, and sometimes they will even complain about it to us. But that sort of thing is not only permitted, it is probably essential to the advancement of the foundation.
By contrast, your disdain is unwelcome, unwarranted, and frankly unwise. Sneering and name-calling and making personal attacks simply antagonizes others. It's all heat and no light.
This particular comment is not the most antagonistic comment I've ever seen, but it is antagonistic enough--and engaging in this sort of behavior immediately after I've warned you against it is straightforwardly unrepentant. You didn't just lose your temper and have a bad day; you plainly decided to disregard my warning and double down on your rule breaking.
Your last ban was for a week. This one is for two. I don't know how to make this any clearer: moderate your tone or your bans will quickly escalate toward infinity.
This is an extremely sloppy way to write if you were just talking about the specific people in your video instead of representative counterprotestors.
The people in the video were the counterprotesters. Do you think a different group of counterprotesters would not have cheered Ricky's bloodthirsty comments?
you were just doing boo-outgroup nut-picking!
Which outgroup? You seem to be confused about the rule concerning specific versus general groups. I did not post about "the alt right" or "Democrats" or "Republicans" or "women" or "men" or "Catholics" or "Jews" or "the blue tribe" or whatever. The only groups substantially addressed in my post were protesters and counterprotesters, specifically those reacting to the murders and those reacting to the reacting. What I claimed about the counterprotesters was true and backed with direct evidence: they were cheering on a call for slitting people's throats, which I found ironic given that the protesters had been incited by knife crime. You're the one dragging the conversation (annoyingly and unnecessarily) into the meta.
Now, if Ricky had said what he said and no one cheered, then sure, your accusation of "nutpicking" might have something to it. But it doesn't, because I didn't share a video of one fringe loon saying loony stuff and then say "Leftists are all like this" or something. I'll repeat it, because it's worth repeating:
The video I shared was of counterprotesters 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?
Think about the children indeed!
Concern for the safety and well-being of children should not be such an overriding value as to trample other important interests. And yet it would be a grave overcorrection to instead disregard the safety and well-being of children, surely?
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
I just read a manga (Don't Call It Mystery) which claimed that America doesn't broadcast crimes that could invite copycats.
American journalistic "ethics," when they are not being rode over roughshod by the rise of clickbait culture, has inconsistently but occasionally in the past taken a "don't promote this" approach to some topics. More often on suicide than crime, though.
These days what the corporate news media avoids reporting is anything that might damage the Narrative--but often they get dragged into reporting it anyway as "alternative" news stories get the scoops and start eating into their revenues.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
I'm sorry you had to deal with this, and you are of course permitted to share your experiences and your frustration. But referring to people as "biowaste" is over the line. Even "smug pricks" is sufficiently inflammatory that you should bring some evidence of smugness and maybe drop the "pricks" altogether.
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your post; I've read it, I just don't have much more to say about it. I don't really want to get into a lengthy relitigation of the BLM stuff. I do think that I see a ton of hypocrisy from the left right now, and flipping that into accusations of hypocrisy on the right is probably warranted on many of the particulars. But this is something I really hate about politics: the unapologetic and consistently deployed meta-hypocrisy of people being intensely hypocritical in the act of accusing the other side of hypocrisy. Every accusation of ideological hypocrisy carries within it an equal and opposite accusation. If anyone who was openly praising BLM rioting wants to now come forward and openly praise the anti-immigration rioting to demonstrate their ideological consistency, I have yet to meet them. That is why I tried to highlight what I felt was being buried under the bullshit: several children are dead.
I just want ideological consistency.
I say this with warmth in my voice and a sad smile on my face, but... you should probably get used to disappointment.
Really? You can't think of any other reason why the counterprotestors might have felt the need to counterprotest?
The headline I linked on that question was "‘More of us than you’: Thousands of anti-racism protesters turn out to counter far-right rallies in UK." It glosses the inciting event as follows:
After days of violence spurred by disinformation around a deadly stabbing attack, police had braced for another night of unrest on Wednesday.
I personally heard about the counterprotests before I heard anything about the actual stabbing; as far as I can tell, the counterprotests were well underway before the arson attempt, and certainly before the apparent traffic checkpoints (of which I had read nothing until your post). And the links I shared did include mention of the attempted arson. Yes, I condemn the burning down of buildings--but then, I've always condemned the burning down of buildings, even when I was being told it's a totally reasonable and proportionate response. But that isn't what my post was about:
Saying that opposing these group is supporting the bad thing is extremely sloppy.
Did you watch the video of Ricky Jones calling to "slit their throats," and the crowd behind him cheering that on? The counterprotesters in that case were clearly and vocally supporting more of exactly the bad activity I was complaining about, right there in the video.
My chosen rhetorical approach here was to bring forward the salient things I felt the news media was glossing over (the murders of the children). Now, I can understand why you would prefer that I make the counterprotests seem more sympathetic, but my rhetorical framing is that I was, and am, amazed at how quickly the actual child murders were buried under a shit-ton of reporting along the lines of "whose 'mostly peaceful' protests produce the most shocking and abhorrent extremes?" That's one of the reasons I chose to focus on Ricky's commentary: because it was so salient, given the nature of the inciting incident.
You can't credibly accuse me of being sloppy when I provide direct video evidence of precisely the thing you're suggesting isn't happening, actually happening.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
You could replace everything in this argument with the case of George Floyd. When policing yields a specific, horrific crime against black Americans and they get upset, telling them to weigh the overall positives of policing against their negatives seems like a non-starter, wouldn't you agree?
Yes! In fact I thought of this exact example as I was writing my comment, as well as some other, more hyperbolic ones (imagine saying of the Trail of Tears, "but look at the aggregate economic benefits of forced relocation!").
And yet, I don't recall you ever making that point five years ago.
No, I can't imagine that I would have done, though like you, I do not memorize my own post history. At a guess, I probably posted something critical of the rioting, and BLM specifically seemed to clearly be a grift from the word "go." However while I am not quite an "ACAB" person I am actually pretty negative on policing generally (I am weakly anti-death-penalty, I am firmly opposed to private prisons, I am strongly against militarized police, etc.)--though in cases where greater policing seems clearly called for, I am also unimpressed with extant alternatives. So I probably just didn't say anything about that particular part of the unrest at the time; in general, this space has always been very bad at guessing my politics.
Long story short--if I should have been making this point five years ago, why aren't you agreeing with me now? Or if you are agreeing with me now, why dwell on some past possible disagreement that may not have even occurred?
but I think it much more likely that you'll split hairs about how the UK rioters are morally justified while BLM was not now that the shoe is on the other foot
Not at all! But please do note that I've never deliberately made any statement, in this thread or elsewhere, justifying or excusing or even sympathizing with rioting. I've kept my discussion here strictly to protests and counterprotests (and one very explicit call to violence from a counterprotester with a modicum of clout). I'm against rioting; in fact I do not even particularly care for public protests. I don't attend them, I have sometimes been inconvenienced by them to no positive end. But I do not oppose protests, provided they are peaceful and do not interfere with my commute to work. I just so rarely understand them; the people protesting almost always seem confused and contradictory and self-sabotaging.
Millenials and boomers are probably screwed; maybe the zoomers will become sufficiently desensitized to snuff and viral videos that we'll return to equilibrium after people born before ~2005 die off.
I am reminded of something said much, much longer ago than five years:
Well, I said, and you would agree (would you not?) that what has been said about the State and the government is not a mere dream, and although difficult not impossible, but only possible in the way which has been supposed; that is to say, when the true philosopher kings are born in a State, one or more of them, despising the honours of this present world which they deem mean and worthless, esteeming above all things right and the honour that springs from right, and regarding justice as the greatest and most necessary of all things, whose ministers they are, and whose principles will be exalted by them when they set in order their own city?
How will they proceed?
They will begin by sending out into the country all the inhabitants of the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parents; these they will train in their own habits and laws, I mean in the laws which we have given them: and in this way the State and constitution of which we were speaking will soonest and most easily attain happiness, and the nation which has such a constitution will gain most.
Yes, that will be the best way. And I think, Socrates, that you have very well described how, if ever, such a constitution might come into being.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Oh, I agree! That link was included with a heavy dose of irony.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
The mod team has discussed this a little and while we've not arrived at a blanket ban, we have dropped "low effort" warnings on posts that were nothing but ChatGPT. I suspect our responses to generative AI will continue to evolve as technology and general use evolve.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
The anti-immigration argument expressed in this post seems too strong.
Why?
The positives have to be weighed against the negatives.
Why?
I mean, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse. As I've already stated in this thread, I am myself pretty ambivalent about immigration, insofar as it (A) tends to benefit me, personally and (B) tends to economically benefit nations, on average. But when immigration yields a specific, horrific crime against the indigenous population and people get upset about that, telling them to weigh the overall positives against their negatives seems like a non-starter, argument-wise.
In other words--I actually agree that the positives have to be weighed against the negatives. But I disagree that this is the sort of thing that can be resolved by aggregating the relevant interests. If the costs imposed on, say, working class Britons is sufficiently high, then they have good reason to reject immigration even if the aggregate utility rises--for the same reason that the government cannot permissibly harvest your organs against your will when doing so would save five or twenty or even a thousand lives.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
It seems unlikely Axel was an Islamist, Rwanda is only something like 2% Muslim and he’d likely have an Islamic name if he was born to a Muslim family.
All the reporting I've seen that mentions it says his dad, at least, was nominally Christian. (I've also seen a number of people on reddit gloating about it, as if it proved anything. "The child of African immigrants who murdered these little girls was a Christian, you bigots!" is not the W they seem to think it is.)
I suppose he could be a convert, but again that would likely have come out by now.
If he was radicalized by anyone other than right-wing Christian nationalists, I cannot imagine a world in which the UK government would allow that to come out under the current circumstances (though if sufficient evidence existed, of course, they may not be able to stop it)--but maybe I am too accustomed to the American approach to reporting such events.
Of course there's no need for him to have been radicalized by anyone, sometimes people do just go totally off the rails without provocation or even any evidence of motive at all.
I just found the Taylor Swift connection to be an interesting coincidence.
The term "recent immigrant" doesn't have a universally agreed-upon timeframe, but it generally refers to someone who has immigrated within the last few years.
I'm not sure how much I want to go down this road. I have... let's call them vast and boring... objections to any use of statistical language manipulation, corpus linguistics, LLMs, etc. in arguments concerning law and politics.
And I did say I'm not wed to the term!
But FWIW, ChatGPT agrees with your assessment.
Until, that is, you ask it "Could an Indigenous American describe white people as 'recent immigrants?'"
Yes, an Indigenous American could describe white people as "recent immigrants." European settlement in the Americas is relatively recent compared to the thousands of years that Indigenous peoples have lived on the continent.
When Indigenous Americans use the term "recent immigrants" to describe white people, it serves to emphasize the long-standing presence and sovereignty of Indigenous peoples in the Americas before European colonization. This perspective can underscore the impact of colonization on Indigenous cultures, lands, and societies, and challenge the dominant narratives that center European settlement as the beginning of American history.
Hmm, maybe there's a political bias here? How about "Could native Britons describe citizens of African descent as 'recent immigrants?'"
Native Britons could describe citizens of African descent as "recent immigrants" if they are referring to individuals or communities who have migrated from Africa to the UK within the last few decades. In this context, the term "recent immigrants" would be used in the same way it is applied to other groups who have migrated to the UK in modern times.
However, it is important to consider historical context and sensitivity when using such terms. The UK's relationship with Africa is complex, involving colonial history, migration during and after the British Empire, and the movement of people due to conflicts and economic opportunities. Describing someone as a "recent immigrant" can sometimes oversimplify or overlook these broader historical connections and the contributions of African-descended people to British society over many generations.
It's also worth noting that the term might not apply to all citizens of African descent in the UK, especially those who have been settled for several generations, or whose families have been in the country for a long time. The term "recent immigrant" is most accurately used for those who have migrated within a relatively short timeframe, typically within the last few years or decades.
(Emphasis added.) With no special prompting from me, ChatGPT spontaneously volunteered timeframes ranging from decades to centuries for "recent immigrants," and very specifically volunteered "decades" in a question about precisely the context we're discussing. While I do see some political bias (no reminder of "historical context and sensitivity" in the Native American version, no caveats about white people who have lived here for years or decades), these seem like pretty comparable answers. They also seem absolutely concordant with the idea that Africans who moved to the UK "within the last few decades" are "recent immigrants."
So like... if refusing to accept "decades" as a reasonable timeframe for "recent" immigration is not an indication of outright dishonesty and manipulation (which you have given me no reason to suspect), should "at least a major warning light . . . be going off in your head about bias creeping into your language?"
And really--I think no! I think your question was perfectly fair. Which is why I thought about it for a bit before coming to the conclusion that no--"recent" is probably a fine word to use in this context, and probably also a fine word to not use in this context. Ultimately I don't think the substance of my argument is significantly impacted either way.
I do quite like your point about being caught in a double bind between not being able to critique 20-year-old policy and also not current policy.
This is actually something I think about a lot, in a lot of contexts. It's weird to live in a world where perfectly good arguments often go out of style, simply because everyone has heard them before. The extent to which fashion so often drives philosophy is frankly maddening. But I don't know what else to say about it; it's not a fashionable observation to make, so essentially nobody wants to talk about it.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
I view it as a -- correct! -- suspicion that she was being presented with a "gotcha!" question, and decided it was better for her to avoid the question, and that any potential benefit from a frank and honest response was outweighed by the chance of her comments being misconstrued or used as a political cudgel.
Ah--but she didn't avoid the question, did she! She answered it, and her answer was stupid. Even by your proffered metric, an intelligent answer might have been to respond, as Souter once did (when asked about abortion),
". . . with respect to that . . . I think that is the point at which I must respectfully draw that line . . . this kind of discussion would take me down a road which I think it would be unethical for me to follow is something that perhaps I can suggest, and I will close with this question: Is there anyone who has not, at some point, made up his mind on some subject and then later found reason to change or modify it? No one has failed to have that experience. No one has also failed to know that it is much easier to modify an opinion if one has not already stated it convincingly to someone else. With that in mind, can you imagine the pressure that would be on a judge who had stated an opinion, or seemed to have given a commitment in these circumstances to the Senate of the United States, and for all practical purposes, to the American people?"
But no! Her answer was:
Can I provide a definition? No. I can't. Not in this context. I'm not a biologist. . . . Senator, in my work as a judge what I do is I address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.
Even the reference to experts I have no sympathy for; cases sufficiently contested to arrive at the Supreme Court essentially never lack for "expert" representation on both sides, disagreeing over the correct outcome. Leaning on "experts" is lazy jurisprudence.
In fact, giving an "honest" answer but with an implication you didn't consider is potentially even harmful! Realizing this is a positive trait, thinking before you speak, is it not?
I don't see evidence of that here. This response was not clever, however one might wish to backfill cleverness into it. I mean, just... look at Souter's response. It's practically boilerplate at this point: "that is a question that seems likely to come before the Court." Jackson was so worried about accidentally saying something non-Woke that she didn't even think to use the boring boilerplate. To be either so zealous in that cause, or so cowed by it, as to elicit such a flub... no. There is nothing to be impressed about in her response.
It says more about our current politics than it does about her specifically.
Certainly it is harder to be a virtuous person when one does not live in a virtuous state.
I won't say it's impossible, but it often feels that way.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
There is a certain kind of young man who finds Taylor swift incredibly annoying. I’m not certain why, exactly- she seems not appreciably more annoying than other pop stars of similar ilk, at least- but it is a thing. And both of these involved young men.
Topically enough, five years ago I wrote a post on Taylor Swift's Awokening in the Culture War thread. I think it was one of the last AAQCs I got before becoming a moderator.
Truth be told, I still enjoy most of her music.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Rather than acknowledge that these incentives exist, and they are quite strong, you're deliberately attempting to take the evasive answer at face value rather than acknowledge that smart people sometimes choose to say dumb things because it's beneficial for them to do so.
No, I'm asserting that choosing to say stupid things because the incentives are strong is stupid. There are strong incentives to commit a variety of crimes. Depending on where you live and a host of other factors, there may be stronger incentives to not commit crimes, but on the whole society is better off if people choose to not commit crimes even when they would not be punished for it.
This is like, foundational Western political theory. It's the primary concern of Plato's Republic--should you value what is good and true, or only what is to your advantage? I tend to find Plato's conclusion compelling: that being bad is bad for you, and being bad is actually worse for you if you get away with it, because that makes you a worse person. Whether Justice Jackson is genuinely confused about what "woman" means, or is instead just so corruptible that she thought it would be better to pretend she was confused--either way, she showed herself to be a poor nominee and a stupid person. Sly, maybe? But not intelligent. Not honest. Not the sort of person who values justice above her own social standing.
"But lawyers do this all the time!" You bet they do, and people rightly hate us for it. I left the practice of law because I simply couldn't handle it. It was entirely too much work to live by my principles and make a profit at the same time. I won't say it was impossible, but it often felt that way. I make less than a tenth of what most of my old classmates are pulling down now, the opportunity costs of going into academia were so severe--and I've never once regretted the sacrifice.
Now, you can call that "illogical" if you want, but if you're going to accept that
There is not an expectation of complete truth in all of their responses to a nomination board, merely a hope of general integrity.
I'm just going to disagree. It's not impossible to be truthful and also be appointed to the Supreme Court--just very, very hard. So yes: if Jackson is not stupid, then what remains is for her to be actually evil. And yes, maybe it is the kind of piteous evil that infects the vast majority of human beings everywhere in every age, the simple and banal evil of pretending to be good only when doing so will yield direct benefits, or avoid obvious costs. But I'm not going to hold appointees to the Supreme Court to a lower standard of truth and justice than I hold myself. You are free to make a different choice.
Isn't it definitely worth mentioning that if he were born in the UK, it's not at all a "recent" immigration?
Replying to both of your comments here--I'm not wed to the word "recent." But the consequences of immigration can surely take decades and even centuries to play out, depending on the details. As I noted to FiveHourMarathon,
The children of recent immigrants are often targets for radicalization; indeed, crime rises among second-generation immigrants as they assimilate, though I've seen some recent (I suspect politically-motivated) attempts to muddy the waters on this.
As for whether it's really Labour's fault, I'm not sufficiently keyed in to British politics to say much about that. Very generally, I suspect that people who are broadly anti-immigration will often be the sorts of people who also use words like "uniparty" or "globalist" to describe the way that progressive and conservative elites always seem to be able to set aside their differences when it comes time to screw the average nobody.
Immigration has often been recognized as precisely this sort of thing. Bernie Sanders' opposition to immigration is grounded in the idea that it hurts poor Americans, and the people who disagree with his take tend to just be so globalist that they're willing to accept the tradeoff. From the linked article (emphasis added):
Maybe such harm would be justified if it prevents a major harm from befalling native-born Americans. But immigration does not harm native-born Americans on average. It helps them.
Immigration is indeed good for Americans (economically), on average! But if you're one of the millions of Americans for whom it is actually bad, how should that make you feel? Personally, if I were working class, I cannot imagine being happy to hear that, thanks to increased immigration, people already better off than me were going to, on average, benefit more than I was going to suffer.
If someone can't protest the direct result of immigration policy twenty years after the fact (old news! proximate cause!), and can't protest the immigration policy proposed today (racist!), even when the same party is in control today as was in control twenty years ago, then where does that leave them? I am myself somewhat ambivalent about all this; I know enough about economics to know that trade and immigration are big contributors to prosperity in much of the world, but I also try to be empathetic with people who are clearly harmed--whose well being is being consciously sacrificed by government actors for the "greater good." So I've been a little stunned by the apparent absence of anything approaching sympathy in the UK counterprotests, particularly considering, you know, the murdered children.
But yes: the Taylor Swift thing is weird!
EDIT: I forgot to say! There is a joke: what is the difference between Americans and the British? Answer: Americans think 200 years is a long time, and Brits think that 200 miles is a long way. "Recent" immigration could be a hundred years ago, depending on your culture. Americans of European ancestry are sometimes accused of being recent immigrants even if their ancestors arrived on the Mayflower...
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Yeah, weird is nowhere near as bad a slur as w*man
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by this; in the future, please put more effort toward speaking plainly.
Speak plainly.
Read charitably.
This is true only in some trivial butterfly effect sense that is beneath notice, if you mean some deeper theory about it say it out loud.
I disagree that it is true only in some "trivial butterfly effect sense." The children of recent immigrants are often targets for radicalization; indeed, crime rises among second-generation immigrants as they assimilate, though I've seen some recent (I suspect politically-motivated) attempts to muddy the waters on this.
I do not see anything racist about protesting against lax immigration standards when the inciting event was perpetrated by the child of recent immigrants. I find the counterprotesters in question exceptionally blameworthy.
UK, are you OK?
Labour councillor calls for people to 'cut the throats' of 'Nazis and fascists'
Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’
Probably anyone reading this is familiar with the story so far: three gradeschool children in Southport were knifed to death, and ten others injured, on July 29th at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club. The alleged perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, is reportedly the son of Rwandan immigrants and was 17 years old at the time of the incident, but has apparently since passed his 18th birthday. 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.
Why would you counterprotest a protest against the knifing of schoolgirls? Well, apparently the original protests were racist. It's pretty important to not be racist. Sufficiently important, 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. Not that Axel is an immigrant, of course. He was born on the magic soil of the UK, so it's apparently racist to notice that his parents weren't. I saw one article suggesting he might be autistic? Good sources are hard to find.
That brings us to the current events! Labour councillor Ricky Jones apparently found some inspiration in Axel's extracurricular activities, as he is very clearly articulating additional knife violence as the proper response to people protesting the murder of little girls. I actually had a surprisingly difficult time finding the original video; most of the articles throwing around the word "alleged" did not judge me fit to judge for myself. I assume Ricky was born tone deaf because throat cutting seems like an especially poor choice of words given the circumstances--though I guess I don't know for certain that Axel managed any literal throat cutting in the process of (EDIT: ALLEGEDLY) butchering schoolchildren. The UK does not have any particularly meaningful or toothy Free Speech legislation, either, though in this particular case I can imagine Mr. Jones facing consequences even here in the United States. Remind me, is it still okay to call for the punching of U.S. Nazis? Was it ever? I seem to have lost track.
Axel's knifework is not being treated as a terrorist attack (yet?), but here's where things get weird.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
Taylor Swift shows in Vienna canceled over alleged planned terrorist attack
Suspects in foiled attack on Taylor Swift shows were inspired by Islamic State group, officials say
Will we hear more about Axel's motivations? I suppose Taylor Swift is just so famous that at this point any plot to kill large numbers of people would, statistically, run into Taylor Swift events eventually. But now I'm wondering if Axel was just, you know, reading the same weird terrorist handbook as the Austrian terrorists. They were even the same age--the two arrested in Vienna are 19 years old and 17 years old. If I had a nickel for every time a 17 year old boy tried to murder Swifties en masse, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice!
I'm sure much smarter and well-connected analysts out there are way ahead of me on this one. And probably it's nothing! And it wouldn't really matter if it was something, beyond maybe bankrupting a handful of Taylor Swift event ticket scalpers in the near future. But it's all very weird.
Especially the part where counterprotesters started literally calling for and cheering on more knifings.
Specifically, I have published some academic criticism of the Chinese government under my real name, and I had some past associations with a Chinese national who disappeared (probably he disappeared on purpose, to avoid being disappeared by others, but I don't actually know for sure) a few years back.
This is all sufficiently small time that I would give myself better than 90% odds of being fine if I were to ever visit China... but the same could probably be said of Mexico. Even a 100% safe and successful tourist jaunt to either destination would involve a lot more nervous checking over my shoulder than could possibly be worth the trip.
More options
Context Copy link