Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
I see you as a far leftist who defines as far right people who disagree with you and defines yourself incorectly as centrist. Since this is a very common tactic of the left to win, I think it is an important issue.
You can fit into what is tried to be presented as mainstream center left and disagree with people further left than you and still be sufficiently far to the left to qualify as far left though. Because the mainstream left is far left in its agenda. Same applies with the establishment agenda in institutions that you declare has already changed too much, even though it has not. It is a woke agenda that hasn't been dismantled and so it is obviously reasonable to question whether your self identification is inaccurate over what you actually support.
You might even honestly define yourself incorrectly as more moderate than you really are and others as much more extreme than they really are. I understand why far leftists who constantly do this tactic don't want to explore this issue, but they are actually the aggressive party, defining everyone who doesn't share their radical ideology as far right. The common principles of the mainstream liberal ideology are a far left radical ideology and you personally have fitted sufficiently with this ideology with your sentiments of insulting on people on the right who oppose for example the great replacement and aren't liberals. Again what you promote fits with wanting wokeness to remain entrenched which is an obvious point that you could have addressed directly.
It is only fair after you guys constantly try to aggressively label and marginalize others, to accept people who disagree with this and see you as the radical extreme faction. Sorry but you can't just win unopposed by just incorrectly labeling others inaccurately and labeling yourselves inaccurately, and after labeling others that you can't complain for others who disagree with your labels. Feigning neutrality while doing far left things is the tactic of far left 101 that it has constantly done.
I even worked to break down how some of the principles of liberals are extreme. That I don't just lazily label you is not the advantage that you think you are. Nobody forces people who don't want this to read only shorter posts. Let me do this again.
The truth is that if we are to put ideologies into circles, if your circle does not have shared ground with what you call far right, on nationalism, you are far left. And the reason you are far left is that your ideology is too extreme and hostile against a group and proposes a radical destructive vision, and shares within it hateful intolerant authoritarian perspective. If your ideology is a radical ideology that says that your ethnic outgroup should go extinct and be happy to do so, including the demographics that historically made a big part of a nation, that is very radical. It actually fits within treasonous hetoric in many countries, even within the text of their constitutions. It is even more radical if it is within your own nation. It isn't far right to be hostile to this ideology, but far right is a self serving arbitary label to justify this extreme agenda. In fact it is an element of the extremism that people want to label others as far right for opposing it.
If we are to put a line from anti white to pro white for example of one issue, you and mainstream liberalism will be on the far left. Or consider heteronormativity, or fertility rates and whether it makes sense to be dogmatic for liberal dogma. Or intersexual relationships and feminism vs more conservative norms. What is called far right for being too pro white for example often encompasses more moderate space than liberals. By the principle that to be too extreme in one category makes one far right, then liberals should be considered far left. Or take conservatism. When it comes to social behavior, the liberal typically is not a moderate who combines conservative with non conservative notions at least the non left wing sense, and what is called far right tends to encompass those who are more synergistic in combining conservative and some elements of social liberalism in less amount than the liberals. Or take censorship, you try to present non woke liberals (which should include neocons who are not conservatives but a form of the tribe of iberals) as betters for censorship but the discussion had various people who others wouldn't label woke, who supported this guy being fired after being doxed for his more right leaning non liberal views. A position more extreme than Vance's which was that he disagreed with him but he shouldn't be fired, because he might be good in his job and that this was the result of left wing doxxing.
If we are to analyze ideology through circles that encompass ideology, purity spiraling means to really avoid to have any shared ground with others on the areas they aren't wrong. This is a central aspect in what the space complaining about far right does on issues of nationalism, social liberalism vs conservatism, interethnic relationships. The position of the mainstream establishment fails to be at all a reasonable synthesis, or compromises in line with Aristotle's approach in Nicomedean ethics that seeks a moderate virtue that contrasts two extreme vices.
Beyond the liberals declarations of others to be far right, and for the liberals to represent some sort of reasonable center lies begging the question and purity spiral dogmatism. It is one of the biggest myths and assumptions that must be challenged and reexamined.
If people don't want to bother with doing that because it isn't in their advantage to do so, it is expected. If you want to be lazy about it, then posting that, just sounds like an excuse to avoid confronting the argument and to dismiss the other party. I think to an extend liberals have grown entitled due to expectations of censorship, allowing them to get away with just labeling themselves and others and win, without examining in the substance, if what they support is actually good and reasonable and to dissent is to be an extremist as they present it. That, and because of previous march on institutions and authoritarian measures and stubborn zealotry in repeating such associations, to an extend it has stuck and even people who oppose liberals to an extend sometimes adopt their terminology. It hasn't stuck with everyone thankfully and it is arbitrary self serving propaganda that is meant to help a political faction at the expense of any opposition, and what is true and good. That is because you are willing to label too positively untrue and destructive agendas and label too negatively true and moral perspectives.
The woke are not on the rope. They have not even begun being dislodged. What has happened is the start of some setbacks for them. It is fine to admit you don't want them to be dislodged, which is what will happen if victory is declared already.
The anti-woke did just that, but what's more, they didn't even get driven off most of the existing Internet.
Non anti woke liberals support censorship and woke agendas. They support doing it on progressive grounds and zionists on zionist grounds.
There isn't this movement of moderate, centrist liberals out there, because mainstream liberalism shares the pathologies of anti white racism, virtue signalling authoritarinsm, hatred of dissent, distorting things in favor ,progressive political corectness over what is true, obviously it is part of patronage networks and corruption where money is directed to them and their client groups. Are definetly nationalists for their favorite demographics and are definetly motivated by hostility towards the continued existence of homogeneous ethnicities of their etnhic outgroups and want to replace and end them both for ideological and ethnic hatred and to gain an electoral advantage. They see fascism in the existence of european ethnicities which is very extreme, and also treat with fanatical hostility those dissenting with them on such issues.
And so, I don't think from the depths of such hostility that you can have people who respect freedom of others. Nor are all freedoms equal, the freedom of totalitarian tyrants to impose their struggle sessions on their ethnic and ideological outgroup is not equal to the freedom of not having this imposed against you and suppressing political commissars who demand that you hate your group. The liberal war on all sorts of isms leads them to support cancel culture constantly and with intensity.
National freedom necessitates keeping out extreme foreign nationalists or Communists for example, that favor your nation destruction and subjucation out of ethnic hostility or ideological hostility to your nation, or both. That liberals blacklist those who don't share their extreme ideology, in addition to discriminating against white males, is something that can't be forgotten, since we can't have institutions be controlled by people who abuse their position.
This isn't to say that those who claim to be anti woke can't be for censorship either on progressive, which is most common, zionist, or even right wing grounds.
There is also the question of what measures are necessary for a good public morality. I doubt the Trumpian right which is authoritarian on criticism of Jews and Israel, is going to ban porn. Authoritarianism in line with the same old establishment ends seems more of a threat than genuinelly right wing cultural authoritarianism.
Personally, I would rather people who tell the truth and care about what works well, are promoted, while those who lie, censor, are suppressed. And the first get rewards and praise while the later get scathing criticism and lose opportunities. And there are some general ethical priorities too. People who care about their own nation's well being, and therefore can't be for maximizing individualistic hedonism, but are honorable in their dealings with rest of the world. I don't believe you can have every institution this idea of "everything goes". Discernment inevitably will exist, and it should weight against the Walter Duranty characters but in favor of the Gareth Jones type of characters. Instead of letting the Walter Duranty types of the world as it happens today, to cancel the Gareth Jones types of the world. https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/news/a-tale-of-two-journalists-walter-duranty-and-gareth-jones/
Now, as far as liberalism goes, it falls in the Walter Duranty side rather than the Gareth Jones side. Cancelling their patronage network hasn't even started happening and would be welcome news.
To the extend one can identifie a pervasive liberalism that differs from a pervasive "woke", it will still share most its pathologies, with the woke are just even further extreme on the same direction.
My view of the matter is that it does not make sense to pretend of a center left that doesn't exist, because far left policies is the behavior of the mainstream left, and of mainstream liberals. Extremism is what the supposed center left is about. This pretension just ends with the far left doing far left things while those who aren't them, we let them and are asleep. It is just a big myth to justify their anti right wing extremism and their far left politics.
That liberals who think the right which hasn't even started doing things, should stop, is part and parcel of the extreme ideology against the right wing doing things which has lead to things being so far left to begin with. It is obligatory for right wingers who have started changing things to not listen to liberals who oppose them from doing so, and see them as part of the entrenched far left. The far left has become such a big problem while there has been countless rhetoric of liberals downplaying the problem of far left extremism and exaggerating the problem of right wing extremism during that time. In response the right wing has started to evolve, and these tactics no longer work anymore.
Belisarius
.
15d ago
You are basically a leftist, dude. The left wins by pretending neutrality and always demanding the right to be impotent.
The right will need to do a lot more victories before anything like a stalemate happens.
Sports is full of actual corruption and conspiracies like many endeavors. I have no familiarity with NBA and any theories but conspiracies happen constantly.
Including fixing matches. Football (aka soccer) that I have some more familiarity is notoriously corrupt.
The same guy that’s telling me the Marines just raided a FEMA data center in Iceland to get the files about the 2020 election will tell me that the mechanic slit the rubber on his CV boot so that the mechanic could charge him to fix it.
Generally this happens too! Mechanics do deliberately do shoddy work and charge people more. Certainly not all mechanics, all of the time, but it happens. Which is why it is so important to find an honorable mechanic, or at least to know enough to not be taken easily advantage of.
Someone who always assumes best would be wrong plenty of time, and same as someone who always assumes people are acting nefariously.
With sports there is also a certain type of people who always assume that their team loses because everyone is conspiring against them which is of course an incorrect way to see reality.
Conspiracies and bad behavior and plots to screw others over, is a constant of history. It is a bad idea to always assume best, or worse, I would say. Unrestrained anti-conspiratorial thinking is extremely irrational. Except it is often pushed by people who actually do support people shutting up about corruption and side with people who a) are screwing over others and support the faction that is accused of wrongdoing b) might be screwing over others and still support the faction. The priority being to shut down any dissent.
You actually do need to be vigilant against being screwed over and to organize to keep down people doing so. Easier said than done when it comes to various institutions that the corrupt have captured control. Even then, how far and openly they push things can be controlled to an extend through backlash.
Honorable behavior can't be taken for granted but requires both having a community of moral, honorable people, but also everlasting vigilance against those willing to behave in the more dishonorable manner. Suspicions can have a protective effect when they combine with some control mechanism to test for wrongdoers, catch them and punish them. The absence of people willing to put 2 and 2 together and call corruption out, and try to stop things then will of course lead into things getting even worse. The healthy instinct is to worry about people who want to cover up for Epstein network, rather than worry about people who care. Even less high on the food chain, we see rapists like the former school coach Jerry Sandusky who benefited from other members of the stuff of his school, helping cover things up.
Of course, that is one thing, and there are some people who believe they saw big foot, pyramids build by aliens, and have a more fantastical way of seeing the world that is less about being antagonistic towards criminals, or bad people coordinating. These people aren't really useful at opposing corruption and conspiracies, but also their way of viewing the world is not going to lead to purges of innocents falsely accused. I find the fearmongering about conspiracies it self suspicious and the whole conspiracy theory as bad word tm, has probably been pushed by intelligence agencies and influential non governmental organizations that would rather not be opposed. Ironically, there is too much unjustifiable paranoia about the harm of people not trusting authorities, and not enough fear about the dangers of people being too conformist towards authorities. The issue being that paranoia towards the problems of nonconformism can lead authorities to double down on stupid, wrong and even disastrous decisions and also allow the corrupt, criminals and bad actors with more sinister agendas, to take advantage. Not to mention that it can lead to persecuting people for not buying into what a) could be false b) actually is false.
One other example of this is accusations of Russians bombing Nordstream not getting the label of engaging in "conspiracy theory" and being "conspiracy theorists" but those who accused the USA of doing so, getting the label. Establishments, and even some rival establishments of different countries have always lied to their people, whether through false flag attacks, false pretexts, or one sided narrative of how geopolitical issues are presented. And really all sort of issues. In Roman history they deified emperors which is of course was a lie. So part of the conspiracy issue is about establishment narratives and following them as one is told, or dissenting from them. To an extend the conspiracy theory label is thrown for people who oppose George Soros activities for another example and the whole issue relates with dissenting from a politically correct discourse that deliberately avoids criticizing the favored narrative.
Belisarius
.
17d ago
I am sure that in addition to USAID the CIA has other tentacles. But cutting off USAID would definitely cut a tentacle or two, or even three.
Philanthropy and aid is genuinely the space for spooks and criminals like Sam Bankman-Fried come out and play. That and activists who actually try to march into institutions like the CIA.
Kanye could had been a sort of martyr who stood up for his beliefs enough to get completely cancelled in a previous episode. Just don't cancel people who say that Jews cancel people if you don't want them to be martyrs. That and the threats from his personal "doctor"/handler can't be just dismissed because the dude is acting foolishly. He certainly is not some kind of consistent conservative icon though.
His antics definitely have reduced some of the bite of his past complaining about Jewish producers pushing degeneracy in the black community through what art they support, and what they encourage people to be doing. But he could have been partly right then and part of the problem now. Partly, because art isn't only the result of producers desires without artists themselves having influence. Even though producers and agents can be influential not only through dictating to artists but also by what kind of people they choose to promote.
Regarding his wife's extremely slutty outfits. Kanye West seems to approve and so does she. It doesn't make sense to make her a victim in this. It isn't the first time she is almost naked in outfits that circulate online. I highly doubt she is constantly forced into it.
Nah, you hate them because your politics. I am also not on their side but a) most people who are critical on Scott are not Nietzschean neoreactionaries and much more on the right and I am on their side more so because the dispute is more so about whether it is good at all to have an ethnic group you identify and put first rather than full seflishness b) Those few who actually are that, their take goes too far but it is a reaction towards those who want to impose pathological altruism on them. Going full vitalist in general is incorrect but having that reaction towards people demanding that they put their people last is correct. In addition with respecting prioritising one's family including extended, there needs to be a reciprocity in altruism that exists even among people of different abilities. Which is to say I help you but you would help me.
So, if we talk about specific characters and not as a way to dismiss the right in general, I do have some disagreement and antipathy, but you don't have any sympathy for the imposition of pathological altruism against their people, as a motivating factor.
The neocon and left wing ideologues contrarily oppose treating their ethnic outgroup as victims who needs justify any prioritization. This is dominant perspective on the left that claims to be antiwoke which I would put neocons who try to be influential in the right to also fit into.
- Ironically, many of these people are obviously losers who are psychologically driven by the same kind of resentment that Nietzsche described, just like many extreme leftists are.
Hilariously uncharitable and far leftist redditor 101 rhetoric. Also doesn't this statement by implication try to present your faction as the ubermench over the extreme leftists and the Nietzscheans? Why not start saying they have a small dick and are all incels. One can dismiss every faction by making this claim since it is easy to assume for your outgroup, and many social media addicts will have their losers. Although it does seem that the left has greater % of mentally ill.
I do think it is a bit much for people online to pretend that any movement is made by ubermench while everyone else are the losers.
The tactic of leftist liberals trying to win the debate by pretending they represent a centrist middle is also at play here.
There is no anti-identitarian right, nor center, nor left in any substantial sense. It only exists as a convenient propagandistic claim. The problem of any genuine opposition to the current order which the woke left does not represent, comes to the fact that people who support progressive identity politics and oppose the rights and interests of groups that the progressive stack alliance is against, especially the Jews, are against it. Rich donors like Paul Singer fund gatekeepers of this ideology. So there has been a march on institutions of people who have the agenda of suppressing the rights of their white outgroup and even other right wing associated identities. The more obvious woke types are just one part of the general agenda. They are more the bad cop of it. The supposedly anti woke liberals share the key ideology and are part of it.
In general it is fiction that there is any anti-identitarian space. There are people who concern troll right wing identity groups because they are in the bed with say zionists, or support as you have doneHlynka the black civil rights revolution which the modern woke is a continuation. Even on the supposed right you have someone like George Soros who is an identitarian funding the compact magazine that concern trolls about people on the right being Kinists. As in putting their family first. Which is even more radical, inflammatory rhetoric as usual.
So some of the anti woke space are fakes who support the inherent logic and the motte and bailey of the far left that moves from radical egalitarianism in general to concern trolling its outgroup, to supporting identity politics for its ingroup.
Additionally, trying to transform societies into some sort of actively hostile to identity even if consistent, which it is not, would fall under a very radical egalitarian agenda. It would fit under the far left, not the center, nor the right.
However, the true nature of the ideology of those who marched on institutions and try to maintain it, is not of a sincere consistent radical egalitarianism, which it self is morally and intelectually bankrupt and doesn't work, but of tribalism that is interested in suppressing and even destroying its outgroup tribes for the sake of its in group tribes of the progressive stack.
Now, while I am against communism, I don't mind the 8 hour work week. While radical egalitarianism is a morally bankrupt dogma that always brought disaster and it is of course an onerous demand towards the groups it applies to, because of these reasons those who promote it make exceptions for groups they genuinely like and argue for example that Jews or blacks deserve identity politics, nationalism, because they like them. This doesn't mean that maximalist right wing so called identity politics is good. The right amount is a pertinent discussion but of course this discussion can't be done by those with a mentality of not giving an inch and even then the tendency of most people on the issue would be to not support sufficient than too much. But I do think there is a point in opposing excesses of any group's tribalism both in theory and in practice.
But yes actually ironically some level of white identity politics is even less racist and works better both from an outside universalist view but even more so actual white people are behaving quite against their own interests if they disagree with this.
People who want to destroy european nations who are in bed with foreign extreme nationalists, and adopt their logic are actually engaging in treasonous behavior. This applies even if they do so under the pretense or they genuinely bought into some radical egalitarian dogma. You do not have the right because you have adopted a certain ideology, to destroy nations, especially your nation. So the correct response has to be to disallow such activities and to gatekeep against them, when the opposite is happening the criminal agenda carriers are gatekeeping. To make criminal organizations which pursue this criminal agenda to destroy european nations illegal and restore the rule of law and stop and punish treason.
Secondarily, many institutions have adopted the idea that they are against racism. Unlike some on the right I do consider racism to be a real thing but opposition of borders is racist. It is about genuinely mistreating other groups, and it is comical absurdity that anyone should accept a moral harm in not being pathological altruist and that your right to exist as a people and retain your proud seperate communisty, is this. And of course there is a lot of gray area. In any war, not treating badly the hostile group ends up allowing them to harm your collective. Nevertheless it is in fact a good practice to discourage or disallow certain practices. The point of our language and classification is to seperate the bad with the good and not muddy the waters. I try to remove some of the deliberate dirt that have been thrown into them to confuse things by the faction I have been criticizing here.
Communistic/radical egalitarian definitions of classism, racism, etc do not matter and are illegitimate and in fact the people citigng them engage in more so in mistreatment in relation to the broader concept, and it is moreover adopted as a concern troll against the outgroup. In addition to engaging in all sorts of horrible behavior towards the broad ideological categories, i.e. most of humanity that would fall under their categories.
A bit like, if I try to get a rich family to lose all their money and struggle session accuse them of classism, or try to kill a poor guy, because he is poor that is actually more of a class associated unfair behavior. If I try to define everyone who has a national community or religious group or property and supports property rights, as evil, then I would be demonizing, oppressing an enormous amount of people and even harming those who are pressured to support this vision and become guilty participants in struggle sessions. Radical egalitarians not only oppressess through hysterics, defamation, blacklisting, but also have a track record of mass murder and more hardcore. But again, this is more of an alliance of tribalists who use radical egalitarian against their outgroup which also has very negative history and implications.
Obviously, targeting certain ethnic groups constantly with an agenda of seeking their destruction and slandering the opposition that they are evil racists, is enormously racist. It is actually genuinely incredibly bad behavior. I do think it violates genuine human rights and rather than giving in to the people who use that rhetoric the weapon of racist accusation, it genuinely is behavior that must be taboo and in practice, not just in theory, its adherents abuse their power. Whether in who they hire, in what content they produce, in what resources they direct, or in taking away peoples freedom both overtly and through their hysterics and slanders and threat of overt action.
People who are fanatical and hysterical about this and namecall are behaving in a manner that is bellow any professional ethical standards as journalists, podcasters, people who run social media, forums. It is an insanely inflammatory ideology in general. And 100 times this for politicians, or as members of bureaucracy, and even more so for any military or intelligence services. The system should be excluding people whose agenda is to destroy the people they rule. And if they have a messianic radical egalitarian combo with extreme nationalism motte and bailey going on, this applies even more so. Since this combo leads to people being fanatics that don't have any limit in how far they would go because they falsely believe to be virtuous. Or rather they have some doubts but because the alternative of what they are doing is so negative, they are inclined to choose to dehumanize those they harm.
Good relationships result in certain issues not being debated ad nauseum because both parties recognize that they infringe on sacred red lines and so they don't bring it up. For example if you have a terrible relationship with your wife, she might try to pressure you into an open relationship. In a good relationship this never enters the picture. If you had a terrible mechanic, he might try to scam you and mislead you about what is the problem with your car so they can overcharge you and insist in pressuring you to accept his take. This is to say, that there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that much of the problems of the culture war have to do with this side which wants to destroy western civilization and if defiend narrowlly, not just that, making constantly onerous demands and pretending they are helping save us from impeding darkness and evils. When in fact they are the problem and an arrangement that respects the sacred red lines that aren't ideological lines of specific weirdo ideologues but obvious common sense red lines, while the absurdity is the radical egalitarian concern troll. Whose adherents which includes plenty zionists and even some pro palestinians, pro anticolonialism nationalism, remember universal nationalism as a principle when it is convenient to them.
Because this faction pretends to support freedom to promote its agenda and oppose freedom when it comes to opposing it, I will also say that: It would be a benefit when onerous demands are shut down and the when we see the end of rhetoric on the lines of "you can't have an inch because you will inevitably take a mile you nazi" type of hysterics, the end result would be a superior intellectually equilibrium.
The freedom to oppose genuine evils and absurdities is good, but it is good for people to know that if they support what infringes on sacred red lines there would be push back. And even better if they are sufficiently honorable to feel shame and guilt when doing so. Which is another part of what I am advocating. So this is a bit different than some on the right and my preffered is a somewhat more dissident center right. Not to be confused by what the things that claim to be center right do. There is too much shame and guilt over things people shouldn't be ashamed and guilty for, but the people concern trolling their right wing outgroup and demanding they accept something very onerous, should not be doing it in the first place because they ought to had felt shame in pursuing such an immoral agenda. There is a very significant similarity with the agenda I criticize here and with the behavior of scammers in general which I find very important for people to bad mouth in general. Because we want honest and honorable people to do business with but also to be in relationships with.
Are nations desire to be nations and the connection its people they feel with each other to be treated as evil because a daft dogma says so? Is a desire for monogamy and not to share your wife with the world evil and irrational because one's simplistic ideology doesn't understand it? And so on, and so on. Radical egalitarianism, also known as the new left and mainstream liberalism of which the woke are not opponents but a component (and it is also hard to seperate them with some people who claim to be anti woke) is both an ideology that includers scammers of the out group and allows to scam the outgroup while making exheptions on the ingroup, but their claims are also based on misunderstandings of human nature, society, what is good, etc and it hubris of modern age for it to be treated as default. Like communism which is terrible but 8 hour work week is good, race communism is terrible but there can be some merit in the idea of universalism in regards to say not invading and killing foreign tribes. But not in seeing your own tribe as evil in its pursuit of its own existence as a healthy, prosperous sustainable ethnic community.
So, I am an advocate for making radical egalitarianism in general and especially the one that concern trolls the right wing ethnic outgroup, to be treated as a shameful ideology. Because even any of its true believers are promoting societal suicidal dogma and it is additionally a convenient way to scam and harm the outgroup. The one sided targeting and exceptions are baked in it, motte and bailey is constantly done, but it is bad even if it was to be consistent which it won't be. It shares ground with the behavior of those who try to get away with scamming others into accepting a very onerous deal.
We would be better off without this ideology around.
I would like for it to spend less time on what it perceives as unfortunate truths that I was reading about a decade ago. So much has changed! Despite the changes many interests, nature of power, and fundamental aspects of our systems have not. There's no new mechanism to work around the Unfortunate Realities. Unless I have the wrong impression, much of what I do read from this sphere explains why you probably can't work around them. "90%" of the nominal followers, along with the leaders they look to, are committed to slop production instead of the advancement of interests.
Important issues have remained important for more than a decade. Highlighting things that remain relevant is good. Sure there are unproductive elements in how the dissident right approaches power but your critique is too total and leads nowhere and instead leads us to avoid the substance of specific issues and gets us sidetracked.
90%" of the nominal followers, along with the leaders they look to, are committed to slop production instead of the advancement of interests.
After being hostile to him, are you using AA for your attack on the dissident right?
Tangential, but if the dissenters must remain independent of the system they criticize to remain credible then must they not participate? Philosophy dudes can correct me, but this seems elementary. Of course not. This would be self-defeating for any serious attempt to advance interests if those interests include practical changes and engagement. One can retain sufficient autonomy inside or beside a system to be credible, so long as those judging him can agree. For conflict theorists, realists, ruffians, outlaws and purists in this milieu this looks like a continual sticking point.
Yes, I think people who want to change a system should participate in it. There is a tension between being integrated into the system and losing your purpose, or not participating.
AA does seem to be someone who doesn't want to be an activist and to to act as more of a scholar.
The whole shebang begins to look more like an art collective than anything else. For Pavini, I have no idea if this is fair. I will try to read more of his links recommended in this thread below. Since you mentioned him, then Kulak for sure is a candidate for the title of artist more than advocate or organizer. He can find success in performing in other venues, because of the ecosystem that Pavini identifies as problematic. Tens of thousands of hobbitses clamoring for more doom posts, more black pills, and more performance. Everyone wants to feed from their own slop trough. That appears to be a major motivation of this lamentation.
Not sure about what thread you were referring. I wasn't recommending anyone. I was just saying that leaving the motte and dealing with right wingers lead to them being more successful, getting more appreciation and far less hate and their ideas were explored more commonly in good faith and in an intellectual manner. Even when people disagreed with their ideas. And it was good personally for these right wingers to filter liberals whose rhetoric tends to be anti intellectual dismissals in general, or just trying to damage their reputation.
Yes Kulak has an element of over the top exaggeration that can be criticized. But he also brings valid points.
What you say about all it being black pills, slop, is just uncharitable inaccurate exaggerated overly dismissive assertion. You use Pavini here against the disident.
To quote Pavini much of rhetoric is bulshit, bulshit, bulshit, therefore we rule. Some of your rhetoric here isn't even wrong you are just making assertions after assertions that are overly dismissive without saying much that is concrete.
Yes, much of the rhetoric promoted by people isn't the same as concrete action but might be influencing politics. Just like the existence of plenty of liberals promoting their agenda is influencing the world.
This statement:
I agree I am more likely to disregard dissent I don't like.
I think this is happening.
If you contrast your criticisms with Pavini's, he criticizes specific sub groups in a manner that makes much more sense. That politicians listen to donors and powerful groups like zionists over voters and people engaged on twitter. He also posted something more optimistic after Trump doing some more promising things than expected and how there is some room for cautious optimism. Even his criticisms of slop is not just a line that is thrown there but makes sense in the context of what AA has been pushing. I don't necessarily agree with how far he pushes it though.
Nobody died and made Pavini infallible anyway. But he makes a point that makes sense and some claims that might be more questionable and your rhetoric about blackpillers, about refusal to participate in politics, slop, gas spinning its tiers in the mud, doesn't make sense. Rather you seem to be trying to overly dismiss the right here.
Regarding friendliness: I don't agree this is a fair characterization. It's not the lack of friendliness that triggers me. I am not easily shocked from most writing and definitely not by the dissident's manifesto. My critique was that it is redundant, tired, or even unproductive. My interests don't restrict myself to read only nice, friendly writers. I'm friendly, and I'm boring. Being non-friendly and critical can be authentic. It's not a prerequisite to honesty though. It's a style, choice, or result of feelings, not a measure of authenticity. Of Kulak's writing that I have appreciated (I have read and appreciated plenty of it, though less in past couple years) not much of it can be called friendly. Cocytarchy was fun, although a novel sort of topic. Some of his critical, unfriendly writing appears inauthentic to me. That's the rub.
I am just saying that a minimum of friendly intentions is a prerequisite for intellectual honesty. There can exist some fair minded people who can be relatively on firm ground even when dealing with people they are hostile too. And this can exist even among people who aren't aligned of course but much less likely with some ideological groups. Liberals tend to be lacking this minimum when dealing with right wingers..
Honestly, you can like or dislike what you like. I am not going to try to convince you that this dude or the other dude, has X article that you will enjoy reading since what you like is going to be based on your preferences.
Pavini still made a valid point about the fact that there hasn't been a good track record for those who have been trusting the plan with the pro zionist establishment right.
I may be wrong to pump out 6 paragraphs to cry about an essay from an author I'm not near familiar enough to pattern match. But I recognize what appear to be thousands of hobbitses learning to pattern-match aesthetics to truth or authenticity. Which creates problems that Pavini, after I've criticized for being Not Entertaining Enough, also recognizes?
What do you mean when you refer to hobbitses?
Trump might be better than other likely alternatives on the right, which could have tangible power and the online right might had some influence and so Pavini's claims might had been too strong. So the associations with aesthetics in this case might have some more validity than the usual politician that right wingers align with. Trump still would be more loyal to a base that have expectations on him, rather than merely blindly following.
Or under Trump they give some small victories but the warnings about Trump and tech oligarchs are true and they continue the path of the surveillance state through private public partnership of the state, intelligence services and private collaborating organizations like Palantir, and the big silicon valley corporations.
I am not surprised at all that you would go there but I was talking far more about AFD and the anti national ideology. I even was explicit about the failure of German establishment to oppose only extreme nationalism. And in response you act if Germany only keeps down neonazis and you define Germany as a post national state. So you are doing what the German establishment in doing. Which is to create a cloud about 80 years old obsessions of nazism against modern nations.
One can't be an enemy of patriotism for opposing a regime that is hostile to his nation.
Nationalism to a sizable pooint is good and in its absence foreigners and people whose behavior fits under the definition of treason end up mistreating an ethnic group, take over its resources and positions, and end up imposing upon it until they become a hated minority or go extinct.
Too extreme nationalism and you become the group oppressing all your neighbors. Not enough nationalism and you end up with a failed anti national state that oppresses your group and always aligns with foreign extreme nationalists while it brings forth your nation's subjugation and destruction. However in reality this idea of extreme nationalist threat from european countries is wildly overblown in use by those who have an agenda against these nations.
There is a relatively correct amount of nationalism and we can in fact have politics dominated by moderate nationalists who lead things to a better end than the alternative.
I would say that you are too hostile to appreciate it and too entitled to people like AA appealing to you. Of course there is room for more dissident right wing writers with valuable things to say than just Moldbug. That statement tells me you simply don't like the dissident right and want it to go away. It is just not for you and it changing sufficiently will end up changing its character in a self destructive manner..
What is my solution to you not appreciating writers like Pavini? There isn't one, not everything has to appeal to everyone. You are welcome not to read him, but I don't think you have been engaging charitably with the merits.
You could make more of an effort to engage with him on his merits by putting yourself in the shoes of actual right wingers who want right wing objectives. Pavini is making actually a valid point. The mainstream right and its cheerleaders have consistently overpromised and not only under delivered but at times delivered in line with left wing objectives. Same with zionists who the republicans have always pandered towards.
AA has also made a video about reasons to be cautiously optimistic about Trump that speaks more positively about some of Trump admin's moves. Both the skepticism and appreciation of some initial steps forward are warranted.
He tries without 100% success to push for analysis from a realist perspective and also to do so while being right wing.
At the end of the day, your reaction illustrates that a certain shared moral priors and friendliness is necessary to explore issue on their merits. Else you get nowhere since you are side tracked by those who are against you even trying to oppose the establishment. I actually have seen more discussion on the merits of such issues by right wingers who are more willing to disagree with each other to an extend rather than having a completely intolerant approach.
I find the right to be a more intellectual space where issues are explored more while liberals are more about promoting conformism and trying to dismiss issues from a politically correct standpoint. So personally, on some level I engage with some dissident right wingers because I find them more intellectually stimulating and entertaining than liberals which I find much less intellectual and more interested in winning by sidelining important issues. Therefore more boring.
I must admit that unfortunately these tactics have had some success. But if one is interested in the question of how power is organized you can study liberals who are more successfully machiavellian, but you can not listen to them because a greater share of their rhetoric is about obscuring what is useful to them politically to obscure for the purposes of getting their way. Which is why it is boring since someone who wants to obscure an issue and get others to shut up about it, will not say what is interesting and true.
A prominent user here once took a lot of heat for some such event. I don't remember what spurred this response, but I do remember the invective deployed against him. Paraphrased it went something like: "Your writing is nothing but gay navel gazing."
If it is who I think he is, Julius Bronson, now Joseph Bronski, he has got some small online success through creating a right wing substack and appealing to right wing voices. He has also not been engaging with as much defensive rhetoric which is easier to do when you don't have to deal with liberals attacking you which is done in part because they are liberals who dislike authentic right wingers. Like Kulak, leaving the motte lead to greater success and a more pleasant response. Sure, there can be elements of behavior of right wingers that are bad, more so for some people, but also liberals love to create constantly discussions about the horrible psychology of the enemy they hate that somehow such issues become much less prominent without the liberals around. There we see discussions that are more about the issues.
Of course there can be blind spots between communities that share certain ideological priors and are more friendly with each other but I do think there is something to a liberal hostility to the realist school of thought that the right is friendlier with and can more easily combine with being right wing. Not always, there is the cheerleading not realistic version to the right too. While the liberal tribe ironically exercises more so the kind of behavior of machiavelianism analyzred by realists than the right, but also to an extend have bought their own propaganda. Therefore, despite any possible ideological blindspots on the right, I don't see liberals succeed in focusing on any just mistakes, but rather are more uncharitable and motivated by a more total intolerance. And there is the great interest to find an excuse to dismiss issues by negatively describing their right wing oppositions. Which makes it hard to explore such issues at all.
This leads also to platforms dominated by the left and liberals to have a mentality that leads to more struggle sessions with each other.
Add to the more pleasant experience for right wingers when trying to engage with right wingers, and I think the end point of the extreme critique of different variants of rhetoric like "nothing but gay navel gazing", is for liberals to be deliberately excluded by right wingers who seek communities with other people on the right.
At the right (excluding those figures who aren't right wing at all), there is some ideological diversity and some hostitilities among factions as well but I find the typical liberal perspective on the right to be of a more fanatically intolerant. Akin to a religion zealot against apostates or enemy religious tribes. I guess a rare atypical liberal like Michael Tracy who doesn't really fit with mainstream liberals, can provide value on blindspots and is one of the people I like to read at times.
This sentiment of wanting to explore unpopular truths but genuinely do so, not just pretend to, is fundamental to any writer of value. And so even outside the right there are people who do so but even they step on some pieties and dogmas of mainstream liberalism. Keeping with the theme that there are shills even among the right, so beyond just right versus non right, I do think there is a value in some authentic truth tellers who share an appreciation for the act of trying to ascertain the unpopular truth. Including when criticising Trump or right wing totems. Especially when trying to explore genuine corrupt behavior by the powerful. So this can to an extend cross some ideological boundaries. Whitney Webb isn't really a strict right winger but I prefer to read her over many more openly claiming right wingers. The intercept's Lee Fang is someone else who I enjoy reading at times. Worthy writers are interested in revealing how things really are, rather than trying to cover things up and obscure reality. So even beyond the right, there is some discussion among people that cross ideological boundaries, but I guess there is still a common element. Which is people willing to criticize the regime on its various problems and corruptions.
Germany is not a democracy and not a free society.
I would rather the world avoids the norms from the German authoritarian far left hate speech police that persecutes its only genuine patriots. This is one of the several examples today of the extremes of anti nazi obsession and how that ends up looking as an occupation goverment. Which is because part of the reason this has happened in Germany has been the influence of some of the people who got influence after ww2. Especially the frankfurt school types. This kind of hysteria is what let to these types arguing in favor of giving German children to pedophiles because else it would lead to a new holocaust, and fascism. And they got away with it. But Germany was occupied and it is tragic to see even in other countries that even fought against Nazis, to see something similiar happen.
The general behavior of Germany isn't something to be proud off. The German establishment and those following its ideologies do not have any lesson to teach. Their current behavior is the opposite extreme of Germany under the Nazis.
Now, make no mistake I would rather countries and even more so other countries are lead neither by traitors who oppress their own patriots, the right wing and their own people in general, nor by extreme nationalists invading other countries. I don't think that your succeeds in only stopping the later.
I am not saying your approach is indicative of the worst of it, but to a small extend is part of a general more hysterical reaction than it is warranted. So there is a trend of antifa inquisition fanaticism throughout the world who have proven incapable of stopping only extreme elements of nationalism and not leading to an anti-native state that oppresses its own nation. Two tier justice system, totalitarianism and hate speech codes, having an agenda in favor of extintion of their own nation, and of guilt and self hatred and of course demonizing those who don't share their agenda. Supporting the extreme nationalism of foreign tribes at expense of their own nation. Ironically this behavior has some similarities to what the nazis wanted to do to some of the countries they conquered that they claimed their people like Polish were a threat to the German nation and should not be allowed ethnic consciousness. With the difference that Germans wanted to do it to other ethnic groups while some holders of this agenda want to do this against their own nation.
This has been part and parcel of their anti nazi crusade. It is comical now 80 years after world war 2 to be acting as if Musk's salute is serious business that we must have a strong reaction and talk about as a serious problem. So I would select in favor of not allowing them to play inquisitors any more. It is actually a good idea to loosen up with the hysterics 80 years after world war 2. Obviously the pro HBD nerd Elon Musk isn't out there to promote invading Poland.Musk's views on legal migration are actually a problem since large migration including legal migration, doesn't respect the rights of the indigenous American people to not be demographically displaced, especially white Americans who are especially targeted for demographic replacement.
If we need more authoritarianism, perhaps we need an inquisition towards the antifa inquisitors who went way over the top and while they think they are fighting the ghost of Hitler, they are actually oppressing their own people. And since there is actually a legitimate duty for a society not to oppress its own people, and to promote the interests of its own nation, first of all the preservation of the nation which is the people common ties of kinship, history, language, ethnic consciousness, it probably qualifies as restoration of rule of law and not necessarily authoritarianism to stop this faction which is itself authoritarian.
Ideally countries should have red lines in defense of their own people and preserving them and their interests that they wouldn't allow to be broken, but also respect some of the same red lines for other nations. There is also room for international collaboration beyond just that, but always with respect of red lines. Just like parents should put their children first, obviously define their children as their children and reject preposterous propaganda that just anyone can be allowed to become part of their children, protect their home, not give it to strangers, but not go around making money for their family by stealing from others, dealing drugs, murdering, etc. And of course they can develop some positive relationships with people outside just the family. Plenty of constitutions already say things along these lines of how it is the duty of the leaders of the goverment to protect the nation and how it is treason to harm the nation and have plenty to say about treason. So there is room to remember this and to start enforcing it.
Not that specifically, although it can be a part of it and more that they are more passive and a greater subset of women can be pushed around by the more aggressive men, or even more aggressive women than would apply to equal % of men. Of course as we see with only fans, it would be inaccurate to assume that any woman that sells sex is necessarily coerced into it. And there are women who benefit from expectation of lower agency and lower responsibility where it is assumed that they aren't responsible for their own choices.
Low agency I would see it to be about taking ownership of one's own choices and taking an active role in directing one's life and one's affairs. It is about being responsible. Women do this less. Which isn't just about only vulnerability since higher agency men often take care of important things for the sake of their wives.
The feminist side sorta acknowledges this low agency view when it comes to the "protect vulnerable women", but blames the patriarchy and opposes it in some cases, and also forgets the negative side of female behavior when it comes to their quest to give more positions to women, including above and beyond their 50% share of population.
Maybe no agency might be fringe. But women having lower agency is not fringe but mainstream and not only far left and far right. Just not outright stated by some of the adherents of this since they might still want women to have equal influence or don't mind even women being overepresented in colleges.
It is still mainstream to think that women should be especially protected and are easier to exploit, can more easily go along with what is harmful for them, are more passive, defer decisions to others, and so on.
The elephant in the room is the association in the minds of many of prostitution with sex slavery. This is a perspective that people on the left, right and center share to a degree. With sex tourism an angle might be that some prostitution practices in third world might include coercion or underaged victims.
There are other reasons people have to dislike prostitution, but that is the biggest one.
Those include seeing it as a degrading practice for the people who engage it. For those of more conservative viewpoint, including centrists, seeing prostitution as having a negative influence on society which would be better off if people are having sex within their monogamous relationships and marriage.
People that buy stocks, or coins, are motivated by psychological factors, or false conclusions and aren't necessarily buying based on accurate understanding of their value. Like the expectation that X will keep going up and fear of missing out. The market has always throughout history even as far as hundreds of years ago included speculation and bubbles in it. At any given point market gets some prices wrong. But on the long term the market is wiser. Unless the bubble will go on infinitely, which it won't, stocks and coins which have a grossly inflated value over their fundamentals will have their price go down. People have made plenty of money in bubbles while they have also lost plenty of money after it came crushing down.
If someone wants to get rich by engaging in speculation with DJT stock, or coins, it might even work for a time. But it is still speculation, and it is still the reasonable expectation that the price will crush down eventually. Who knows, like the Hawk Tua girl, with the coin it might even happen soon enough that you won't make money. Or it being DJT has more staying power and those who speculate might become rich if they leave after a point.
It is still speculation though and if anyone wants to do that then speculate away. Just accept the risks.
Moreover, this is why you should never bet against Trump the person. Like DJT stock, $Trump has defied the typical 'pump and dump' trajectory seen in other meme coins, like Hawk Tuah's coin, which imploded to zero right from the gate. But $Trump went up 1000x steadily after it began trading--the opposite trajectory. Trump, like Elon, is truly the master of defying what is possible, or doing the impossible. The usual rules do not apply to them. Throw out your preconceived notions. No pump and dump when it comes to $Trump--the gains hold.
Rules don't apply is just wishful thinking. It is possible that with Trump there might be a bigger speculation window. Plenty of bubbles have happened for years at times.
What you are saying about the market being wise based on current prices and rules not applying is really the philosophy of the greedy investor in a bubble and this perspective has always been proven to be wrong. This doesn't mean that someone who speculates with this coin will not make money for a time. It just means that what we know about markets tell us that the price will go down at some point. Predicting exactly when that will happen is pretty tough.
To the extend prices are mostly based on psychology, of course that can and will change. For various factors like the end of Trump's presidency or him actually dying. Or who knows, like with hawk tua coin, people might think to sell it because of these factors and the decline happens during Trump's presidency. Or maybe it happens sooner. Who even knows.
I don't buy into that standard but I do think there is a cult. It is just a general problem than only one that relates to Trump that applies to many politicians, or even broader political factions or groups.
Making it all about Trump makes it seem that politics is separated between the bad orange man and superior other elites, or Trump cultists and then people who care about expertise when actually politics and political discourse is full of fanatics, actual shills who actually get paid to promote certain agendas, and shit politicians. Politicians doing what people who pay for them want over what is good for their country is actually a worse form of corruption than this which it self is a bad thing.
When Trump's problem's are not unique that much and he exemplifies much of what is bad about politics as usual and the establishment right. Even if he has some areas that he is better and others like this which he might be worse than a Romney figure. This is to say, Trump is not the worst thing ever nor the savior.
I don't like the impersonal process-oriented bureaucracy, the expert elite, the oligarchy behind democracy, whatever you call it. They are hypocritical, corrupt, dysfunctional, whatever else. But they're not infinitely that. Society still more or less works. If
Acting as if this means that society no longer works and is worse than what other oligarchs do, well, you haven't really justified this.
Whether it is supporting BLM, their fanatical enormous nation destroying racism, their gigantic incompetence on issues relating to their generally culturally far left viewpoint and even outside of just that as it happened with California fires, mass migration, totalitarianism and making dissent to their false narratives (enabling further predation) a crime or censorship, promoting false views such as lab leak = conspiracy theory (which I believe you have also done and been highly critical of dissenters), oppressing opposition, enormous corruption, the take over of influence by far left NGOs, intelligence services, Jewish lobby which of course results in enormous corruption and redirection of resources and two tier society, and a lot other stuff. Neither California, nor Biden regime, not the neocon/liberal elites are representative of a less corrupt, more competent way to govern.
It isn't as if Trump is actually sufficiently good on any of these, but the "expert elite" do not exist. Corruption, stealing money, insane ideology. Any experts are not representative of elites and it devalues the concept of expertise to associate it with them.
Actually I don't see how this approach to praise the alternative as elite experts and take it as a given that this proves Trump is the epitome of corruption is any less cultist than the kind of Trump supporter who always supports Trump even if as he betrays the principles that would make him more enticing figure than establishment as usual. Trump is converging quite a lot with the neocon establishment in fact even if his domestic policy isn't going to be as bad as Kamala's.
Anyway, this is pretty scummy from Trump to do since the coin is eventually going to go down and is pure speculation at best, and the guy deserves a backlash for this.But your framing is making it to the benefit of something even worse. Is Biden's history of corruption and enrichment better? Not really. Is promoting crypto speculation and a coin of his own the kind of thing that is such a morally depraved act that puts the corrupt establishment as automatically superior as you present it? No, because even with Trump and certainly even with the corrupt establishment, there are worse things than this.
The cult that is in favor of the dominant faction of elites, ideologues that marched on institutions (which includes donors who by buying politicians get their agenda through) is not a superior alternative to Trump's cult. Actually there seems to be some crossover, I don't buy into the myth of Trump phenomenon being at least today completely separate. It would be better to reject both cults and to hold politicians accountable. Rejecting the myth of their good nature, expertise, and automatically correct instincts.
In any war both sides use plenty of similar tools against each other because they work. You don't see a war when one side is capable but decides to not use bullets, missiles, tanks, artillery, air force.
Promoting sympathy for X by portraying them as a minority group under threat is a tool that seems like it would work. X is treated with less sympathy because of rhetoric promoting sympathy for Z as a minority under threat and X as the threat. There isn't any logic to why this won't work if you potray different groups with sympathy and others as threatening them.
Throughout history different tribes promoted narratives that were pro their tribe and antagonistic to other tribes, which worked better than if they did nothing.
One can say that going too far with tribalism might lead to backlash, or can be detrimental in how other tribes are treated. But not going far enough is guaranteed to be detrimental and never lead to any dismantling or weakening of ideology against the group that is adviced not to use the master's tools. So it is a bad advice for the side that has been under siege to avoid using any of the tools of their more tribalist opposition. From a general ethical viewpoint, what in excess is immoral and in too little quantity is bad, in the right amount can be the right thing to do. Beyond just effectiveness.
Slavery itself was ended through force and so it was ended by the tool that maintained it. Rhetoric advocating for and against slavery was another rhetoric used by both sides. Both sides even used the bible. Supporters of slavery might have thought of their own political influence and opponents might have thought of their declining political influence and rise of influence of slave states. Economic interests that relate to slavery and then to those whose under industrial revolution and their different societal organization they didn't benefit with slavery as much and might saw such areas as antagonistic, might had been a factor. Both enslaved who opposed slavery and slave owners where thinking of their interests in opposing each other.
This idea that X group unlike Z group should not pursue their own interests and promote rhetoric framing things in defense of themselves because in doing so they will lose, is not only false but very counter intuitively false.
Gaiman was accused of rape so it certainly didn't work on the long term. And she did eventually file police report, and find other victims or "victims" for those maximally skeptical.
I am critical of extensive progressive consent demands as bad for general society but there is probably a use for them when people are engaging in what seems like rapey BSDM behavior and not engaging in normal sex with their girlfriend/wife. Both to avoid raping the women and to avoid being accused of rape when they thought it was consensual. So there is some room for negotiation. Which is a superior consideration than the fact that this might not be as attractive to some.
Promiscuous, celeb worship culture, BSDM leads to abuse, people are more likely to do so towards those who aren't their wife, etc, etc.
But people part of such subcultures which have more abuse that differs from the morally superior more conservative society that follows superior norms than them should not then try to push BSDM/polyamory norms to the rest of society. Some element of male sexual imitative, "aggression" is part of sexual attraction to a point since men are to initiate sex, kiss, etc so yeah we shouldn't throw the baby with the bathwater and be careful to have reasonable lines and standards and so I don't want to legitimize "I had sex willingly and went along with the man taking the initiative but wasn't that into it, or after a while think I regret it = rape". We have a relationship deficit. We ought to be careful not to promote shitty norms that discourage relationships and sex within relationships leading to marriage. Obviously men have to take the initiative which also relates to signals sent by women, and women don't find it attractive if men don't take the initiative. So the norms should not be stacked against men who try to do this. But there is a line still where it becomes abusive rape/sexual assault and Gaiman seems to have crossed it repeatedly unless we are to believe it is all bullshit.
It is possible this guy was at some point with his sexually aggressive rapey behavior raping/sexually assaulting these women because "when you are rich and famous they let you do it" and went an extra mile in humiliation and aggression, and at some point she decided to no longer accept it. Which is a genuine risk of going with the full dark triad approach.
Plenty of celebs have engaged and been accused of engaging in plenty of promiscuous consensual sex, statutory rape, actual genuine rape. Even a celeb who engages in that and gets away with it might be accused of rape down the line.
Some of the stories fit into rape and or sexual assault and not just seduction. Pavlovich was also working for him as a babysitter and so there is that factor also in play.
Gaiman asked her to sit on his lap. Pavlovich stammered out a few sentences: She was gay, she’d never had sex, she had been sexually abused by a 45-year-old man when she was 15. Gaiman continued to press. “The next part is really amorphous,” Pavlovich tells me. “But I can tell you that he put his fingers straight into my ass and tried to put his penis in my ass. And I said, ‘No, no.’ Then he tried to rub his penis between my breasts, and I said ‘no’ as well. Then he asked if he could come on my face, and I said ‘no’ but he did anyway. He said, ‘Call me ‘master,’ and I’ll come.’ He said, ‘Be a good girl. You’re a good little girl.’”
In 2007, Gaiman and Stout took a trip to the Cornish countryside. On their last night there, Stout developed a UTI that had gotten so bad she couldn’t sit down. She told Gaiman they could fool around but that any penetration would be too painful to bear. “It was a big hard ‘no,’” she says. “I told him, ‘You cannot put anything in my vagina or I will die.’” Gaiman flipped her over on the bed, she says, and attempted to penetrate her with his fingers. She told him “no.” He stopped for a moment and then he penetrated her with his penis. At that point, she tells me, “I just shut down.” She lay on the bed until he was finished. (This past October, she filed a police report alleging he raped her.)
One evening, Palmer dropped Pavlovich and the child off with Gaiman and retreated back to her own place. Pavlovich was in the kitchen, tidying up, when he approached her from behind and pulled her to the sofa. “It all happened again so quickly,” Pavlovich says. Gaiman pushed down her pants and began to beat her with his belt. He then attempted to initiate anal sex without lubrication. “I screamed ‘no,’” Pavlovich says. Had Gaiman and Pavlovich been engaging in BDSM, this could conceivably have been part of a rape scene, a scenario sometimes described as consensual nonconsent. But that would have required careful negotiation in advance, which she says they had not done. After she said “no,” Gaiman backed off briefly and went into the kitchen. When he returned, he brought butter to use as lubricant. She continued to scream until Gaiman was finished. When it was over, he called her “slave” and ordered her to “clean him up.” She protested that it wasn’t hygienic. “He said, ‘Are you defying your master?’” she recalls. “I had to lick my own shit.”
I am interested in the reasons people genuinely do things and far more so the substance of what they support and not the way they will present what they are after since of course people constantly present things too favorably in a manner that distorts things. Whether they are lying to others or to themselves, the positive version of a strawman where it is a positive distortion is a bad thing and not something that should be accepted without exploring where it is wrong.
Censoring reality for the sake of political corectness is bad, but I don't object to someone explaining where a negative conclusion is too negative. And of course being overly charitable towards the left comes along with being overly uncharitable to both those harmed by the left and to those critical of the left.
I don't think OP was merely steelmaning though but was arguing in favor of a specific perspective and against a different view. But there was an entitlement to positive bias towards the left, and I don't think OP sufficiently demonstrated anti-dan's position being inaccurate and anti-dan's argument more accurately captures the reality of DEI than it being about market outcomes.
You can of course insist that the only reason your enemies do anything is that they are stupid and evil, and this may be a satisfying and self-gratifying thing to believe, but it's probably not accurate either.
But this is a strawman! You are framing my perspective too negatively and in a manner that I wouldn't present it while complaining about others supposedly doing the same.
I think some of the people who some include my "enemies" other people who I dislike what they are doing but not necessarily consider my enemies are immoral or insufficiently moral and sellouts who don't even care about what is the right and smart things to do from a broader perspective, or are blind ideologues, or some are neither but something not as bad but still bad enough from the perspective of what is the common good.
There are people who don't have the freedom to resist doing stupid things that enough people push as an agenda and are doing it to get along. Others are smart and malicious and support DEI because they think they will benefit or think it will harm a group that they ideologically or ethnically dislike. Some are not zealous ideologues but might follow a stupid and disastrous ideology
A lot of people can do evil and stupid things all the time, in all sorts of societies, sometimes even ideologically opponents of each other. The expectation of wise and ethical and correct conduct is much more presumptuous.
A very decent % of them can have stupid beliefs while in other facets not be stupid. One could call them misguided I guess and I am not after calling all people doing destructive things with the label idiots/stupid but using your terms. People acting in a self destructive irrational manner such as promoting incompetents at their own expense is an aspect of DEI.
Is the point to make it as if it is about calling people stupid, so you can dismiss the negative criticism that is about irrational ideology and promote the perspective that it is about market outcomes?
Misguided/Stupid/irrational and immoral ideologies and policies happen all the time. There are plenty of different people who support what is wrong for reasons that don't reflect positively upon them, for others to find legitimate things to criticize for lifetimes. Certainly the left is far from exempt from this. There is no legitimate basis to bias in favor of what reflects more positively but could be inaccurate, over what doesn't reflect as positively, and in this case is more accurate.
It can even be beneficial to some of the ideologues if enough influential types have rigged the system to benefit ideological conformism, even if what they support is bad in general. And while it wasn't my original language, but I defended it, yes there are people who support incompetent people who hate them to replace them for reasons of ideological blindspot, going along with zeltgeist, following a bad and irrational ideology, etc.
Have you considered that you might be biased against right wingers who are critical towards the left and are trying to frame such criticisms and negativity as irrational, illegitimate, hysterical, unfair, etc, etc?
You might not be as negative to the establishment neocon type to a degree, I guess, but I simply do not see any of intensity from you for people to steelman your right wing outgroup, but you are in fact the one who is constantly framing the anti feminist, white identitarians, HBDers, those critical of Jews, those critical of the left, etc, you name it, in very a negative light and not in the way they would like to represent their views. Yes you can always try to explain how they genuinely are that bad, and are terrible extremist evil irrational haters, but there is zero consistency here. You might even try to frame it again at how people want to get away with being uncharitable haters. But you are doing so while you are uncharitable and hating. So that would be again trying to frame people in a way that is too negative, incorrect and not how they like to present themselves. This can go ad nauseum with repetition.
It is more that you are using the "unfairness towards left" as a weapon to dismiss the other side, or in fact censor it.
Leftist cancel culture towards people being insufficiently politically correct/insufficiently conformist and positive over left wing visions which has in fact also had a more violent form in history, is actually a very serious deal. You don't seem to care whatsoever if in your extreme zeal to protest perceived unfairness toward the left you are unfair towards the people who you frame as these terrible irrational people, in my view very uncharitably and with distortions.
There are consequences of doing this both in censorship and in booing correct speech that leftists find offensive because it is politically incorrect *. Both in mistreating the naysayers and in not allowing bad ideologies, and bad harmful factions that comprise of people, to be treated accurately, as bad as they really are. And therefore to be allowed to continue to do harm. The rape gangs continuing in Britain after far righters sounded the alarm but they were dismissed, in addition of course to the victims who were also dismissed with some of the stories being especially horrific, is one example of the consequences of zealous pro left and associated groups political correctness which treats negative reality towards its in-groups as too unbelievable and offensive to be taken seriously.
- Hell, there are even negative consequences of being overly dismissive and uncharitable towards both the argument and the people who are 80% correct in a negative criticism towards the left but have some element of exaggeration. Rather than trying to disentangle only the areas where they might be 20% wrong while accepting where they are 80% correct.
Belisarius
.
1mo ago
I am confident that me demonstrating in substance the core of the issue, and you claiming bias and subsequently declaring victory, is a divergence that I am happy to leave things at. I am content for both of us to declare victory with this differing approach.
The House in the American congress passes International Criminal Court sanctions bill in response to Netanyahu warrant, to sanction International Criminal Court. So we see a clear desire to defy decisions made based on a legal understanding. Same appies to UN resolutions against Israel.
Even when the often zionist, neocon elite have been using the very authority of opposition to war crimes, criminal conduct to justify warmongering.
Your claim that you possess as superior textual understanding of international law that justifies your maximalist partisan perspective and its huge double standards is not convincing and is simply false.
By contrast, ignoring the text of what is or is not provided for in international law as convenient (or inconvenient) to advance your desires is the paradigm that leads to systemic abuse of the international law by powers that have more power to shape when and what sort of selective interpretations are advanced more often.
But you are one of those who argue in favor of ignoring international law, by claiming that it doesn't constrain USA because of American sovereignty and the desire of Americans to not be constrained by it. Essentially there isn't any constrain of international law when it comes to American actions. Therefore this is a fallacious arguement because you are not interested in powers abusing international law. Although from your perspective international law means that USA and Israel are allowed to do as it pleases
So it is clear that your attempt to present your position helping us reach a point that great powers will not systematically abusing the law, is false. At best, you could claim you support what you call an international law that allows American and Israeli warcrimes.
My encouragement for the audience is to consider whether Belisarius is making a legal argument on the nature and nuances of laws, or an emotional appeal more motivated by their geopolitical hostilities.
This is projection.
If you were dealing with someone who pretended the Russians never didn't do nothing wrong there might be more equivalency in partisanship. I am actually interested in how the rule of international law can work better. And it isn't by excusing GAE and Israel actions and using the concept as a weapon against other countries.
It isn't geopolitical hostility that the USA and Israel have committed warcrimes but a part of reality.
It is geopolitical partisanship from your behalf that you aren't willing to acknowledge it and are even attacking those who do with false accusations of bad motives, because the facts are overwhelmingly against any claim that such actions haven't happened. Which is why you are trying to advance an argument that somehow it doesn't count.
I am even willing to acknowledge that it isn't only American power that provides limitations to the rule of international law. Of course a UN security council member and a nuclear power like Russia can get away with plenty. Even weaker powers can get away with international law violations through the willingness of greater powers to give them permission to act, based on their geopolitical interests.
This issue relates to the substance of the law in practice. I am sure Pablo Escobar's lawyer could be willing to come up with all sorts of excuses for why Pablo Escobar being allowed to have a stay in a prison designed by Pablo Escobar's specifications was fully legitimate and acceptable, because the Colombian authorities accepted it. I am rather completely disagreeing with your perspective that any rule of law exists where the substance of what ought to be prohibited, isn't followed. Which granted isn't your perspective alone, but central to the corruption of the rule of law in various societies by those who benefit in getting away with what the law is expected to prohibit, and in fact prohibits textually as well. This is the way to get away with corrupting a system, or to leave it corrupt.
There isn't any validity to the view that the opposition to the corruption of the law is irrationally emotional. There are irrationally emotional people, at least from the perspective of the common good, which is those who are emotionally invested in defending groups and organizations that corrupt a system. Escobar who I mentioned had his fanboys. In fact, criminality inspires rational opposition and strong feelings of anger in combination that are a superior response to passivity and giving a damn for what actually matters is how you avoid having your society corrupted by the Pablo Escobars of the world.
Same applies to the rule of International Law which actually exists in a very limited capacity, although I guess it could had been even more limited.
And the actions of the American congress against the international criminal court are part of what makes it limited. Granted, the nature of nation state sovereignty and the potential of political manipulation in the UN by various countries, or ideologues, makes things more complicated than a perspective that to get rule of international law we need to have states as fully subordinate of bodies like the UN.
But that doesn't change the fact that the USA and Israel are breaking all sorts of both textual rules on the books but also the rules as described by the people talking about war crimes, genocides, aggressive war and there is even precedent with trials towards leaders including in Serbia. These actions cannot just be washed away by claims of bias.
Trying to consistently apply at least some of the standards that the USA claims to care about in other countries and not threatening the international criminal court over its decisions towards Israel's warcrimes would be a move towards greater international justice and greater rule of international law. Of course, there is zero chance that the current establishment is going to do this.
You are operating under the assumption that a positive perspective towards the left and DEI is the ethical way to go and accurate.
You haven't established that anti-dan perspective is uncharitable and unfairly describes the DEI policies. You are just asserting that it is booing his outgroup. Ironically, you are attacking as an outgroup people who have a more negative view of DEI and the left. That kind of thing isn't harmless. Far left extremists who were too defensive about the failures of their ideological perspective have probably been among the most destructive forces of the 20th century, including towards their hated right wing outgroup. In general right wing lack of conformity to leftist ideological dogma and their more negative perspective is directly related to plenty of hatred towards the right by leftists who feel entitled to conformism to their ideology and falsely believe it is somehow bad to have a more negative perspective of it.
Underestimating the DEI problem and to the extend it is about incompetent people getting a benefit at expense of those they dislike not only can lead to unnecessary excessive hostility but can lead to underestimating a genuine problem.
Since people who are incompetent and dislike those they replace are benefiting by DEI and that is a central part of it, I don't see any valid reason to dismiss this as inaccurate.
Understating genuine problems and far left extremism and even the racist hatred that has been part of such movements must be taken more seriously because it a much more central problem to the reaction to left wing extremism than people being too unfair towards it. It how the slippery slope happens, through insufficient backlash, which has been what has been observed rather than too much right wing backlash.
Also backlash that leads to reversal of bad policies and agendas would be good thing. I see no reason to be invested in defending the honor of DEI. If people have a more negative view of failed policies, that is a good thing in fact.
I agree that within the american political system, MAGA is more centrist than liberals and neocons. But not sure that it is a centrist liberal movement. And in practice it doesn't seem to be a break from neocons sufficiently. For one, it is willing to champion foreign policy moves and rhetoric that does not fit into that. Like Trump's rhetoric about annexing Canada.
I don't think liberalism is a good thing and a centrist movement would not be liberal but not totally exclusionary of liberal notions. It would be a synthesis of some liberal notions, with conservative and nationalist, with even some dose of internationalist. Like I am a family first type of person but try to treat people outside my family with honor, provided they do the same.
Liberalism in practice is the purity spiral dogmatism. Historically there have been some people more in line with what I favor that might have called themselves liberals as within the national liberalism ideology but they lost and have been overwhelmed by the new left type which is the dominant and representative of the historical trajectory of liberalism. This includes the people who call themselves classical liberals. What they want is new left liberalism with its dogmas and consensuses.
And so I am against it. Only in lower amounts and on specific issues is it valuable. To go with zero liberalism and adopt a purity spiral as liberals do towards conservatism and nationalism (for their white ethnic outgroup, they are more supportive of nationalism for ingroup), would lead to abandoning good things. I like liberal opposition to war crimes for example but then there is a liberal tribe that is also for war crimes. While liberals fail to do this as a tribe, liberalism is to an extend related with concept of political impartiality which is valuable again to an extend. Liberalism in practice fails to even follow its supposed virtues but while I would abandon liberalism, I wouldn't abandon anything related to it. Trying to avoid the same folly that liberals war on "fascism" that leads them to support the extinction and second class status of white people and to aggressively hate those who think otherwise.
The purity spiral to be part of the dna of liberalism and how it developed, but within the views, principles that are associated with liberalism there is some value to be extracted. But to be a liberal is to adopt a framework that will lead you adopt dogmatically too much the new left agenda.
To give it as an exercise: Homosexuality is not illegal but society promotes heteronormativity and champions nuclear families and tries to promote more pro natal monogamous ideology and social mores which is reflected in the media. Promotes its historical reBecause the current situation is actually too unbalanced against heteronormativism and healthy social mores and fertility.
Such society, does not present homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality since the later is both more normal and useful for society, and less related % with other even nastier sexual behavior that to an extend appears as more prevalent with LGBT groups. And there is a patronage network to promote this. It bans surgeries that mutiliate people and doesn't accept trans ideology. But it also doesn't try to aggressively humiliate homosexuals for example.
It is nationalist and pursues its own interests, obviously tries to maintain its ethnic community and promotes some level of pride and self confidence but is honorable in its dealings with other nations. It would never side, support or allow its people to act like some other groups that engage in rape gangs and then close the wagons, or try to convince ethnic groups that they should have no national identity, self hate, and go extinct and be replaced by them and would never tolerate people doing this to them. So this is a synthesis but of course fits well outside what liberals would accept.
Seems to me that decentralizing liberalism from the way we identify is important to having a vision that manages to synthesize important things that both liberals and liberalism are found in opposition to. Since liberalism fails to be a synthesizing reasonable vision, why treat it as a category that we, or the MAGA movement must fit into?
More options
Context Copy link