|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
pretty much all great empires on this globe are racially diverse, because that's what happens when you turn into a superpower that isn't regionally limited. The only exception are island nations. Even if diversity produces conflict the conflict it produces is necessary for advancement of society. To assume that eternal stagnation and homogeneity is somehow 'good' in itself is not a great argument.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 13:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:53 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position. Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism. You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity. Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine. When you say "his position, not mine", how do you reconcile that with your posts from the page before talking about the problems of cultural diversity and how a white ethnostate represented an ideal (if not practical) solution? specifically these posts On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions. On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider.
We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Because my use of "ideal" there clearly isn't a referral to my ideal. That should have been clear enough when I had already explicitly rejected racial differentiation and, consequently, the ethnostate solution. How would you like us to differentiate between when you're talking about your own beliefs and when you're simply repeating the beliefs of white supremacists and explaining at length why you think they're not racist while simultaneously disclaiming them? It gets especially confusing when you drift between talking about your concerns over the problems of multiculturalism and talking about the white supremacist ideal solutions to the problems of multiculturalism without any clear signifiers. Could you perhaps start using bold or underline tags so we know when you're echoing white supremacist opinions without personally endorsing them? Uh, I did in the big post. There's a bolded, underlined quote where I clearly draw the line between what Vox Day thinks and what I think.
When you said that Vox Day's 14 words weren't white supremacism and that anyone who thought otherwise was going to look like a retard and then proceeded to defend them, was that your own opinion?
What about this partAs Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. your opinion?
|
On August 17 2017 13:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have. Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy. Okay, to be explicitly clear, the obvious alternative to everything that I have said as to why Point 14 is in there is that Vox Day actually is a white supremacist. And once again, I reject white supremacism. So (and feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you somewhere) you think: 1) that Vox Day's definition of the alt right is a pretty good one, although it might underestimate the racial emphasis of the movement 2) that he plainly flirts with white supremacists far too much. and if I recall correctly, you were arguing earlier today that 3) it's SO unfair that people keep lumping the alt right in with white supremacists?Honestly, how the hell do you mesh those? He openly admits all these white power tenets (different races absolutely cannot coexist, they shouldn't be mixed, we should create a white ethnostate and kick out all the brown people, white people's culture is the pinnacle of human achievement), but insists he doesn't believe in any "general supremacy," because different races have their own unique strengths (their culture isn't the pinnacle of human achievement, but maybe they're good at sports or something). And yet you think people shouldn't lump that in with white supremacy? I have no qualms with 1 and 2. As for 3, that's not exactly what I said. Though I did argue that conflating the Alt Right with White Supremacy is bullshit, I also acknowledged that the moderate elements of the Alt Right were also partially responsible for bringing this conflation upon themselves due to their failure to distance themselves from the real white supremacists and nazis, of which there certainly are some in the Alt Right. So do his definitions not really apply to those moderate members of the alt right? Because I'm having trouble how anybody could point at a group of people and simultaneously say 1) this set of definitions applies well to this group 2) it's bullshit for someone to think these guys are the same as white supremacists
Like I said earlier, the Alt Right arguably spans everything from the Daily Stormer to Breitbart. That's a very wide range. If you apply Vox Day's definition, you're going to get something much narrower, which I think is more accurate, but it really isn't how the term is being used. There are a lot of people who identify as Alt Right that fall outside of that definition.
|
Hey xDaunt. The miscommunication we're having is probably having is because I'm looking at those bullet points through the filter of "Is this a cover for wanting to establish white supremacy in the United States while pretending to the moral high ground?"
I put the whole thing in spoilers because someone suggested doing something like that. By the time I finished writing this, I was about four pages behind
+ Show Spoiler +Quoting Vox Day himself from his post on the subject, from his website https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.htmlThe great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. That there is enough to look at these points with reasonable suspicion. He makes it explicitly about race. In that regard, let's look at points 10 and 16 again. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. Point 16 scans as nice looking bullshit, because values such as religious beliefs are not part of genetic heritage. People who are ultimately defined by their values are on the opposite side of politics from the alt-right, who are those who believe they are defined ultimately by their genetic heritage. That leaves point 10 standing by itself, and it looks really sketchy, because it implies that the United States is the sovereign homeland of white people, which it's really not. White people gained excessive influence through military force and deceit, which fall under "other reasons" in point 10 itself. Around the same time, they started important black people as slaves, which means that black people have been here as an (involuntary) minority for about as long as white people, and have as much claim on it being their homeland as white people do. If you want to say that the homeland of black people is Africa, then the white people clearly need to go back to Europe. This point also looks like nonsense on examination. So this really looks like a cover for "we want the USA codify white supremacy" as stated The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. As has already been mentioned, that's a close paraphrase of a white supremacist motto. The general conclusion that I have here is that Vox Day is a relatively non-violent white supremacist who is good at making white supremacist tenets look less objectionable. However, I don't think he's really wrong about his definitions of the Alt-right movement. If Neo-nazis and the KKK are the violent white supremacists who would be okay with violently eliminating non-whites until the survivors flee, the Alt-right is the non-violent white supremacists who are okay with non-whites being an underclass generally confined to their own poverty stricken, falling apart ghettos until they die out or leave. If they don't all die out or leave, that's fine as long as white people can take advantage of them by pushing them into the distateful jobs that are below a white person's dignity. The alt-right does have some overlap with the more violent elements, which they are currently distancing themselves from for PR reasons. Alternatively, I may be mistaken and the white supremacist elements might be a smaller but more vocal and visible number. The majority of the alt-right as viewed through r/The_Donald seems to be perfectly happy to flirt with racism, though. BTW, the definition I'm using for "ghetto" is "a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups." Small rant about point 4 below. + Show Spoiler +As for point 4, up until around 1500, Europe spent about a millenia beating each other up over tracts of land and torturing and murdering each other over slight differences in Christianity. In the mean time, Muslims and Indians developed most of the subject of math, which is the bedrock on which the modern world rests. So that's kind of a missing pillar of Western civilization. Not really connected to anything, but I needed to say it so it would stop bugging me. Sorry.
|
On August 17 2017 14:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position. Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism. You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity. Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine. When you say "his position, not mine", how do you reconcile that with your posts from the page before talking about the problems of cultural diversity and how a white ethnostate represented an ideal (if not practical) solution? specifically these posts On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions. On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider.
We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Because my use of "ideal" there clearly isn't a referral to my ideal. That should have been clear enough when I had already explicitly rejected racial differentiation and, consequently, the ethnostate solution. How would you like us to differentiate between when you're talking about your own beliefs and when you're simply repeating the beliefs of white supremacists and explaining at length why you think they're not racist while simultaneously disclaiming them? It gets especially confusing when you drift between talking about your concerns over the problems of multiculturalism and talking about the white supremacist ideal solutions to the problems of multiculturalism without any clear signifiers. Could you perhaps start using bold or underline tags so we know when you're echoing white supremacist opinions without personally endorsing them? Uh, I did in the big post. There's a bolded, underlined quote where I clearly draw the line between what Vox Day thinks and what I think. When you said that Vox Day's 14 words weren't white supremacism and that anyone who thought otherwise was going to look like a retard and then proceeded to defend them, was that your own opinion? What about this part your opinion?
Well, that part was my opinion, but what I was mostly referring to in the disclaimer was my recitation of what Vox Day meant.
As for diversity + proximate = war, yes I do tend to agree with that one to the extent that we are talking about cultural diversity. Again, it's a matter of degree.
|
On August 17 2017 14:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:58 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:18 ChristianS wrote:
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on. Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have. Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy. Okay, to be explicitly clear, the obvious alternative to everything that I have said as to why Point 14 is in there is that Vox Day actually is a white supremacist. And once again, I reject white supremacism. So (and feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you somewhere) you think: 1) that Vox Day's definition of the alt right is a pretty good one, although it might underestimate the racial emphasis of the movement 2) that he plainly flirts with white supremacists far too much. and if I recall correctly, you were arguing earlier today that 3) it's SO unfair that people keep lumping the alt right in with white supremacists?Honestly, how the hell do you mesh those? He openly admits all these white power tenets (different races absolutely cannot coexist, they shouldn't be mixed, we should create a white ethnostate and kick out all the brown people, white people's culture is the pinnacle of human achievement), but insists he doesn't believe in any "general supremacy," because different races have their own unique strengths (their culture isn't the pinnacle of human achievement, but maybe they're good at sports or something). And yet you think people shouldn't lump that in with white supremacy? I have no qualms with 1 and 2. As for 3, that's not exactly what I said. Though I did argue that conflating the Alt Right with White Supremacy is bullshit, I also acknowledged that the moderate elements of the Alt Right were also partially responsible for bringing this conflation upon themselves due to their failure to distance themselves from the real white supremacists and nazis, of which there certainly are some in the Alt Right. So do his definitions not really apply to those moderate members of the alt right? Because I'm having trouble how anybody could point at a group of people and simultaneously say 1) this set of definitions applies well to this group 2) it's bullshit for someone to think these guys are the same as white supremacists Like I said earlier, the Alt Right arguably spans everything from the Daily Stormer to Breitbart. That's a very wide range. If you apply Vox Day's definition, you're going to get something much narrower, which I think is more accurate, but it really isn't how the term is being used. There are a lot of people who identify as Alt Right that fall outside of that definition.
At this point you've offered a definition of alt right from a leader in the movement, said you thought it was a good one, invited us all to take it as a definition of alt right, but now want us to hold criticism of the movement on the grounds that someone might call themselves alt right but not fit into the definition you provided?
It sure seems like they've just basically been neo-Nazis all along and anyone in the movement who didn't see that surely must be cured of the illusion by now
|
On August 17 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:
As for diversity + proximate = war, yes I do tend to agree with that one to the extent that we are talking about cultural diversity. Again, it's a matter of degree.
Well, in that case this highly diverse group of White Nationalists with various mixes of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Iberian, etc. ancestry should move as far away from each other as possible and then cut themselves into little pieces with each piece representing the dangerously diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds from which they originate. That sounds like a good way of reducing proximity of diversity.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:02 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I mean he's literally defending the 14 words as a rational and completely non racist position. Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism. You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity. Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine. When you say "his position, not mine", how do you reconcile that with your posts from the page before talking about the problems of cultural diversity and how a white ethnostate represented an ideal (if not practical) solution? specifically these posts On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions. On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider.
We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Because my use of "ideal" there clearly isn't a referral to my ideal. That should have been clear enough when I had already explicitly rejected racial differentiation and, consequently, the ethnostate solution. How would you like us to differentiate between when you're talking about your own beliefs and when you're simply repeating the beliefs of white supremacists and explaining at length why you think they're not racist while simultaneously disclaiming them? It gets especially confusing when you drift between talking about your concerns over the problems of multiculturalism and talking about the white supremacist ideal solutions to the problems of multiculturalism without any clear signifiers. Could you perhaps start using bold or underline tags so we know when you're echoing white supremacist opinions without personally endorsing them? Uh, I did in the big post. There's a bolded, underlined quote where I clearly draw the line between what Vox Day thinks and what I think. When you said that Vox Day's 14 words weren't white supremacism and that anyone who thought otherwise was going to look like a retard and then proceeded to defend them, was that your own opinion? What about this part As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. your opinion? Well, that part was my opinion, but what I was mostly referring to in the disclaimer was my recitation of what Vox Day meant. As for diversity + proximate = war, yes I do tend to agree with that one to the extent that we are talking about cultural diversity. Again, it's a matter of degree.
So you desire a culturally homogeneous homeland for people such as yourself, but not necessarily a racially homogeneous homeland? Would you agree with that characterization?
I said "people such as yourself" because "Americans" seemed an overly broad phrase, after all, many Americans aren't Christian, many more are Spanish speakers, many are SJWs etc. Would you agree that the homeland you desire isn't reflected by the current multicultural America and would be more reflective of, let's say, the culture embodied by those of Anglo heritage? As a simple example, would there be a national language (English) in your homogeneous land? Ben Carson welcome, Spanish speaking children born here, not welcome, kinda thing?
If I've misunderstood you I apologize and ask that you please explain exactly what your desired homogeneous state would look like so that I don't misunderstand you in future rather than just dismissing my post.
|
On August 17 2017 14:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:58 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have at it. I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong about him. God knows that Vox Day flirted has flirted with white supremacists far more than he should have. Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy. Okay, to be explicitly clear, the obvious alternative to everything that I have said as to why Point 14 is in there is that Vox Day actually is a white supremacist. And once again, I reject white supremacism. So (and feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you somewhere) you think: 1) that Vox Day's definition of the alt right is a pretty good one, although it might underestimate the racial emphasis of the movement 2) that he plainly flirts with white supremacists far too much. and if I recall correctly, you were arguing earlier today that 3) it's SO unfair that people keep lumping the alt right in with white supremacists?Honestly, how the hell do you mesh those? He openly admits all these white power tenets (different races absolutely cannot coexist, they shouldn't be mixed, we should create a white ethnostate and kick out all the brown people, white people's culture is the pinnacle of human achievement), but insists he doesn't believe in any "general supremacy," because different races have their own unique strengths (their culture isn't the pinnacle of human achievement, but maybe they're good at sports or something). And yet you think people shouldn't lump that in with white supremacy? I have no qualms with 1 and 2. As for 3, that's not exactly what I said. Though I did argue that conflating the Alt Right with White Supremacy is bullshit, I also acknowledged that the moderate elements of the Alt Right were also partially responsible for bringing this conflation upon themselves due to their failure to distance themselves from the real white supremacists and nazis, of which there certainly are some in the Alt Right. So do his definitions not really apply to those moderate members of the alt right? Because I'm having trouble how anybody could point at a group of people and simultaneously say 1) this set of definitions applies well to this group 2) it's bullshit for someone to think these guys are the same as white supremacists Like I said earlier, the Alt Right arguably spans everything from the Daily Stormer to Breitbart. That's a very wide range. If you apply Vox Day's definition, you're going to get something much narrower, which I think is more accurate, but it really isn't how the term is being used. There are a lot of people who identify as Alt Right that fall outside of that definition. At this point you've offered a definition of alt right from a leader in the movement, said you thought it was a good one, invited us all to take it as a definition of alt right, but now want us to hold criticism of the movement on the grounds that someone might call themselves alt right but not fit into the definition you provided? It sure seems like they've just basically been neo-Nazis all along and anyone in the movement who didn't see that surely must be cured of the illusion by now
I don't think that I've ever requested that anyone not criticize the movement. There are certainly plenty of things to criticize. My request has been for people to be accurate with the criticisms. Calling all of the Alt Right neonazis and white supremacists is not accurate in my view, even if we apply Vox Day's definition of Alt Right.
|
On August 17 2017 13:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:51 reincremate wrote:
An increase in people with dark skin or who follow a different faith doesn't reduce your chance to celebrate your culture. One caveat to this: if that other group starts to become prevalent where the first group used to be the majority, it will indeed lead to trouble. It is not by virtue of mere "racism" that all the migrant swarm events are generally associated with some large degree of "white flight" from now-overrun communities.
I'm sorry, did some Dothraki-looking people kick your door down and force your family out of your previously milky white neighbourhood? White people choosing to leave communities they believe are becoming too "non-white" is a non-issue. And yes, that is mere racism.
The level of white power apologist idiocy in this thread is hilarious.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 14:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:09 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 14:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:58 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy. Okay, to be explicitly clear, the obvious alternative to everything that I have said as to why Point 14 is in there is that Vox Day actually is a white supremacist. And once again, I reject white supremacism. So (and feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you somewhere) you think: 1) that Vox Day's definition of the alt right is a pretty good one, although it might underestimate the racial emphasis of the movement 2) that he plainly flirts with white supremacists far too much. and if I recall correctly, you were arguing earlier today that 3) it's SO unfair that people keep lumping the alt right in with white supremacists?Honestly, how the hell do you mesh those? He openly admits all these white power tenets (different races absolutely cannot coexist, they shouldn't be mixed, we should create a white ethnostate and kick out all the brown people, white people's culture is the pinnacle of human achievement), but insists he doesn't believe in any "general supremacy," because different races have their own unique strengths (their culture isn't the pinnacle of human achievement, but maybe they're good at sports or something). And yet you think people shouldn't lump that in with white supremacy? I have no qualms with 1 and 2. As for 3, that's not exactly what I said. Though I did argue that conflating the Alt Right with White Supremacy is bullshit, I also acknowledged that the moderate elements of the Alt Right were also partially responsible for bringing this conflation upon themselves due to their failure to distance themselves from the real white supremacists and nazis, of which there certainly are some in the Alt Right. So do his definitions not really apply to those moderate members of the alt right? Because I'm having trouble how anybody could point at a group of people and simultaneously say 1) this set of definitions applies well to this group 2) it's bullshit for someone to think these guys are the same as white supremacists Like I said earlier, the Alt Right arguably spans everything from the Daily Stormer to Breitbart. That's a very wide range. If you apply Vox Day's definition, you're going to get something much narrower, which I think is more accurate, but it really isn't how the term is being used. There are a lot of people who identify as Alt Right that fall outside of that definition. At this point you've offered a definition of alt right from a leader in the movement, said you thought it was a good one, invited us all to take it as a definition of alt right, but now want us to hold criticism of the movement on the grounds that someone might call themselves alt right but not fit into the definition you provided? It sure seems like they've just basically been neo-Nazis all along and anyone in the movement who didn't see that surely must be cured of the illusion by now I don't think that I've ever requested that anyone not criticize the movement. There are certainly plenty of things to criticize. My request has been for people to be accurate with the criticisms. Calling all of the Alt Right neonazis and white supremacists is not accurate in my view, even if we apply Vox Day's definition of Alt Right.
You're saying that they're not all white supremacists, even if we define them using a definition that includes subscribing to the 14 words?
|
On August 17 2017 14:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 14:02 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Of course it's a racist position because it clearly distinguishes on the basis of race. I never argued that it wasn't. All that I argued was that, as Vox Day used it, it wasn't about white supremacism. You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity. Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine. When you say "his position, not mine", how do you reconcile that with your posts from the page before talking about the problems of cultural diversity and how a white ethnostate represented an ideal (if not practical) solution? specifically these posts On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions. On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider.
We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Because my use of "ideal" there clearly isn't a referral to my ideal. That should have been clear enough when I had already explicitly rejected racial differentiation and, consequently, the ethnostate solution. How would you like us to differentiate between when you're talking about your own beliefs and when you're simply repeating the beliefs of white supremacists and explaining at length why you think they're not racist while simultaneously disclaiming them? It gets especially confusing when you drift between talking about your concerns over the problems of multiculturalism and talking about the white supremacist ideal solutions to the problems of multiculturalism without any clear signifiers. Could you perhaps start using bold or underline tags so we know when you're echoing white supremacist opinions without personally endorsing them? Uh, I did in the big post. There's a bolded, underlined quote where I clearly draw the line between what Vox Day thinks and what I think. When you said that Vox Day's 14 words weren't white supremacism and that anyone who thought otherwise was going to look like a retard and then proceeded to defend them, was that your own opinion? What about this part As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. your opinion? Well, that part was my opinion, but what I was mostly referring to in the disclaimer was my recitation of what Vox Day meant. As for diversity + proximate = war, yes I do tend to agree with that one to the extent that we are talking about cultural diversity. Again, it's a matter of degree. So you desire a culturally homogeneous homeland for people such as yourself, but not necessarily a racially homogeneous homeland? Would you agree with that characterization? I said "people such as yourself" because "Americans" seemed an overly broad phrase, after all, many Americans aren't Christian, many more are Spanish speakers, many are SJWs etc. Would you agree that the homeland you desire isn't reflected by the current multicultural America and would be more reflective of, let's say, the culture embodied by those of Anglo heritage? As a simple example, would there be a national language (English) in your homogeneous land? Ben Carson welcome, Spanish speaking children born here, not welcome, kinda thing?
Like I said before, there needs to be a certain level of cultural homogeneity. Again, I don't know what that level is. Common language is certainly essential. People who live in the US need to learn English. Other than the acceptance of and adhere to the basic Western values that I laid out earlier, I'm not sure what else I'd include at this point.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 14:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:15 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 14:02 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity. Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine. When you say "his position, not mine", how do you reconcile that with your posts from the page before talking about the problems of cultural diversity and how a white ethnostate represented an ideal (if not practical) solution? specifically these posts On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too.
The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions. On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider.
We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Because my use of "ideal" there clearly isn't a referral to my ideal. That should have been clear enough when I had already explicitly rejected racial differentiation and, consequently, the ethnostate solution. How would you like us to differentiate between when you're talking about your own beliefs and when you're simply repeating the beliefs of white supremacists and explaining at length why you think they're not racist while simultaneously disclaiming them? It gets especially confusing when you drift between talking about your concerns over the problems of multiculturalism and talking about the white supremacist ideal solutions to the problems of multiculturalism without any clear signifiers. Could you perhaps start using bold or underline tags so we know when you're echoing white supremacist opinions without personally endorsing them? Uh, I did in the big post. There's a bolded, underlined quote where I clearly draw the line between what Vox Day thinks and what I think. When you said that Vox Day's 14 words weren't white supremacism and that anyone who thought otherwise was going to look like a retard and then proceeded to defend them, was that your own opinion? What about this part As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. your opinion? Well, that part was my opinion, but what I was mostly referring to in the disclaimer was my recitation of what Vox Day meant. As for diversity + proximate = war, yes I do tend to agree with that one to the extent that we are talking about cultural diversity. Again, it's a matter of degree. So you desire a culturally homogeneous homeland for people such as yourself, but not necessarily a racially homogeneous homeland? Would you agree with that characterization? I said "people such as yourself" because "Americans" seemed an overly broad phrase, after all, many Americans aren't Christian, many more are Spanish speakers, many are SJWs etc. Would you agree that the homeland you desire isn't reflected by the current multicultural America and would be more reflective of, let's say, the culture embodied by those of Anglo heritage? As a simple example, would there be a national language (English) in your homogeneous land? Ben Carson welcome, Spanish speaking children born here, not welcome, kinda thing? Like I said before, there needs to be a certain level of cultural homogeneity. Again, I don't know what that level is. Common language is certainly essential. People who live in the US need to learn English. Other than the acceptance of and adhere to the basic Western values that I laid out earlier, I'm not sure what else I'd include at this point.
Would "black culture" be allowed? What about people who believe in Islam but go no further than peaceful expression of their beliefs (voting, holding rallies, funding lobbyists etc the way pro-life folks do)?
|
On August 17 2017 14:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:15 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 14:02 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You can't use the 14 words in a way that isn't about white supremacism. You might as well praise Jesus as the son of God in a way that isn't about Christianity. Or it could just be some higher level trolling. All I did was report what he says, taking at face value his explanation for what the Alt Right is and why he included Point 14. Again, it's his position, not mine. When you say "his position, not mine", how do you reconcile that with your posts from the page before talking about the problems of cultural diversity and how a white ethnostate represented an ideal (if not practical) solution? specifically these posts On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too.
The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it. On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions. On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider.
We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Because my use of "ideal" there clearly isn't a referral to my ideal. That should have been clear enough when I had already explicitly rejected racial differentiation and, consequently, the ethnostate solution. How would you like us to differentiate between when you're talking about your own beliefs and when you're simply repeating the beliefs of white supremacists and explaining at length why you think they're not racist while simultaneously disclaiming them? It gets especially confusing when you drift between talking about your concerns over the problems of multiculturalism and talking about the white supremacist ideal solutions to the problems of multiculturalism without any clear signifiers. Could you perhaps start using bold or underline tags so we know when you're echoing white supremacist opinions without personally endorsing them? Uh, I did in the big post. There's a bolded, underlined quote where I clearly draw the line between what Vox Day thinks and what I think. When you said that Vox Day's 14 words weren't white supremacism and that anyone who thought otherwise was going to look like a retard and then proceeded to defend them, was that your own opinion? What about this part As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. your opinion? Well, that part was my opinion, but what I was mostly referring to in the disclaimer was my recitation of what Vox Day meant. As for diversity + proximate = war, yes I do tend to agree with that one to the extent that we are talking about cultural diversity. Again, it's a matter of degree. So you desire a culturally homogeneous homeland for people such as yourself, but not necessarily a racially homogeneous homeland? Would you agree with that characterization? I said "people such as yourself" because "Americans" seemed an overly broad phrase, after all, many Americans aren't Christian, many more are Spanish speakers, many are SJWs etc. Would you agree that the homeland you desire isn't reflected by the current multicultural America and would be more reflective of, let's say, the culture embodied by those of Anglo heritage? As a simple example, would there be a national language (English) in your homogeneous land? Ben Carson welcome, Spanish speaking children born here, not welcome, kinda thing? Like I said before, there needs to be a certain level of cultural homogeneity. Again, I don't know what that level is. Common language is certainly essential. People who live in the US need to learn English. Other than the acceptance of and adhere to the basic Western values that I laid out earlier, I'm not sure what else I'd include at this point.
So...be white and speak english. If they can conform to that criteria, they're welcome. Correct?
|
On August 17 2017 14:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:09 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 14:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:58 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:25 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Well.. 1488. It is kind of an obvious sign, even though i find Kwark especially obnoxious the last couple of posts, he does have a point with that. The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy. Okay, to be explicitly clear, the obvious alternative to everything that I have said as to why Point 14 is in there is that Vox Day actually is a white supremacist. And once again, I reject white supremacism. So (and feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you somewhere) you think: 1) that Vox Day's definition of the alt right is a pretty good one, although it might underestimate the racial emphasis of the movement 2) that he plainly flirts with white supremacists far too much. and if I recall correctly, you were arguing earlier today that 3) it's SO unfair that people keep lumping the alt right in with white supremacists?Honestly, how the hell do you mesh those? He openly admits all these white power tenets (different races absolutely cannot coexist, they shouldn't be mixed, we should create a white ethnostate and kick out all the brown people, white people's culture is the pinnacle of human achievement), but insists he doesn't believe in any "general supremacy," because different races have their own unique strengths (their culture isn't the pinnacle of human achievement, but maybe they're good at sports or something). And yet you think people shouldn't lump that in with white supremacy? I have no qualms with 1 and 2. As for 3, that's not exactly what I said. Though I did argue that conflating the Alt Right with White Supremacy is bullshit, I also acknowledged that the moderate elements of the Alt Right were also partially responsible for bringing this conflation upon themselves due to their failure to distance themselves from the real white supremacists and nazis, of which there certainly are some in the Alt Right. So do his definitions not really apply to those moderate members of the alt right? Because I'm having trouble how anybody could point at a group of people and simultaneously say 1) this set of definitions applies well to this group 2) it's bullshit for someone to think these guys are the same as white supremacists Like I said earlier, the Alt Right arguably spans everything from the Daily Stormer to Breitbart. That's a very wide range. If you apply Vox Day's definition, you're going to get something much narrower, which I think is more accurate, but it really isn't how the term is being used. There are a lot of people who identify as Alt Right that fall outside of that definition. At this point you've offered a definition of alt right from a leader in the movement, said you thought it was a good one, invited us all to take it as a definition of alt right, but now want us to hold criticism of the movement on the grounds that someone might call themselves alt right but not fit into the definition you provided? It sure seems like they've just basically been neo-Nazis all along and anyone in the movement who didn't see that surely must be cured of the illusion by now I don't think that I've ever requested that anyone not criticize the movement. There are certainly plenty of things to criticize. My request has been for people to be accurate with the criticisms. Calling all of the Alt Right neonazis and white supremacists is not accurate in my view, even if we apply Vox Day's definition of Alt Right.
I mean it's clearly white nationalist. He tries to get out of white supremacist at the end by saying something about different races having different strengths and weaknesses, but after talking about how our culture is the pinnacle of human achievement that rings pretty hollow. He clearly wants to say a lot of good about whites, and he almost certainly doesn't believe in some kind of multicultural "we can't say the other cultures are better or worse, they're just different" type of idea. Add in "its absurd to think there's no connection between race and intelligence" and I think it's pretty clear he thinks white people are better, and maybe thinks they aren't strictly "supreme" because the other guys can run faster or something. Which makes him just another white supremacist who uses some partial minority status to throw off the scent a bit.
|
On August 17 2017 14:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 14:09 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 14:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:58 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:48 ChristianS wrote:On August 17 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 13:32 Sermokala wrote:On August 17 2017 13:30 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The thought wasn't lost on me. And to be fair, it's the one point that I find to be badly out of place with the rest. Why would Vox include that point when he is otherwise portraying the Alt Right as being race neutral? The charitable answer is the one that I gave, but it may be the incorrect one. OH come on. Then just say "Or it might be him expressing facist or white supremacist views that I don't support or agree with". and we can all to bed happy. Okay, to be explicitly clear, the obvious alternative to everything that I have said as to why Point 14 is in there is that Vox Day actually is a white supremacist. And once again, I reject white supremacism. So (and feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you somewhere) you think: 1) that Vox Day's definition of the alt right is a pretty good one, although it might underestimate the racial emphasis of the movement 2) that he plainly flirts with white supremacists far too much. and if I recall correctly, you were arguing earlier today that 3) it's SO unfair that people keep lumping the alt right in with white supremacists?Honestly, how the hell do you mesh those? He openly admits all these white power tenets (different races absolutely cannot coexist, they shouldn't be mixed, we should create a white ethnostate and kick out all the brown people, white people's culture is the pinnacle of human achievement), but insists he doesn't believe in any "general supremacy," because different races have their own unique strengths (their culture isn't the pinnacle of human achievement, but maybe they're good at sports or something). And yet you think people shouldn't lump that in with white supremacy? I have no qualms with 1 and 2. As for 3, that's not exactly what I said. Though I did argue that conflating the Alt Right with White Supremacy is bullshit, I also acknowledged that the moderate elements of the Alt Right were also partially responsible for bringing this conflation upon themselves due to their failure to distance themselves from the real white supremacists and nazis, of which there certainly are some in the Alt Right. So do his definitions not really apply to those moderate members of the alt right? Because I'm having trouble how anybody could point at a group of people and simultaneously say 1) this set of definitions applies well to this group 2) it's bullshit for someone to think these guys are the same as white supremacists Like I said earlier, the Alt Right arguably spans everything from the Daily Stormer to Breitbart. That's a very wide range. If you apply Vox Day's definition, you're going to get something much narrower, which I think is more accurate, but it really isn't how the term is being used. There are a lot of people who identify as Alt Right that fall outside of that definition. At this point you've offered a definition of alt right from a leader in the movement, said you thought it was a good one, invited us all to take it as a definition of alt right, but now want us to hold criticism of the movement on the grounds that someone might call themselves alt right but not fit into the definition you provided? It sure seems like they've just basically been neo-Nazis all along and anyone in the movement who didn't see that surely must be cured of the illusion by now I don't think that I've ever requested that anyone not criticize the movement. There are certainly plenty of things to criticize. My request has been for people to be accurate with the criticisms. Calling all of the Alt Right neonazis and white supremacists is not accurate in my view, even if we apply Vox Day's definition of Alt Right. You're saying that they're not all white supremacists, even if we define them using a definition that includes subscribing to the 14 words?
Correct. The difference here is that I'm taking what was said at face value rather than adding extrinsic meaning to the words. You may think that this is ridiculous, but it is what it is. Like I have said already, I could be wrong in my read of Vox Day.
|
On August 17 2017 13:48 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 10:50 IgnE wrote:
bayesian priors are a belief system that is always only a justification a posteriori. you are sitting here making claims that its "rational" to be scared of blacks on a train because of "statistics" about "the violence of black people" (in comparison to the US) with no reference to any other details and no acknowledgement that the criterion black is always an arbitrary criterion.
in other words, if you and i were betting on indidual crimes in trains i am quite positive that i would beat you over the long term by using "average rate of crimes in trains" if you were using a "racial propensity for crime" model. i am aware that this is almost tautological but i am also sure that there are nearly an infinite number of models that would have a better performance than "are the people on this train black?"
now i am not arguing that a feeling of fear is never warranted (imagine a gang of bloods dressed all in red with doo rags and face tatts and all those "im black and dangerous" indicators and flashing a gun) but the millions of pieces of data your brain is analyzing has only the slightest resemblance to this "racial stereotyping" abstraction you are talking about, not all of it inherently racist, while your racial stereotyping abstraction is exactly that. for another thing there is no way that anyone working with stereotypes in practical situations has access to rigorous data of the right type. its always an operation of unjustified belief.
you seem to have missed the point here ("oh you just dont understand bayes theorem! you see there are these things called 'priors' that are really cool"). yeah i know what bayes theorem is and i know what a prior is. a prior is the conscious assignation of a value to what amounts to more or less of a gut feeling. even framing the question structures priors. why are we asking "whether black people are more dangerous" rather than "whether train riders on a wednesday at noon" are more dangerous? Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:
@mozoku
what i am trying to emphasize is that the context under which stereotypes form is always limited and never fully applicable to the instant situation. you have come up with an example (the train example), which you will shift in the course of this discussion, and perhaps disown entirely as "just an example" (i.e. it's not about the specifics it's about the generality of stereotypes in making efficient decisions about known statistical distributions). and yet the framework about which distribution to use in any given situation is (usually) a pre-conscious given that has no possible rational justification other than belief. and in almost all cases is using bad data.
now if you think about how you want to run society, and how those pre-conscious judgments structure relations between people, you might say, "well a consideration about how likely any random black person is to be violent" is a racist consideration because it deliberately chooses his or her race as the arbitrary criterion for making a judgment to the exclusion of literally everything else we know about him or her (and often what we know about ourselves). I brought up Bayes because a stereotype is an informal prior for a person. When there is pre-existing precise language developed for having this discussion, it improves the discussion to make use of it. I didn't bring it up because it's "cool." I never made the claim that race was a strong predictor of violence on trains. In fact, I even acknowledged it was very weak in my post ("the probability of being the victim of a crime is still low"). My point was merely to demonstrate that stereotypes have predictive power in character as well as Mahjong skill prediction. Even if skin color isn't the cause (and it certainly isn't), it has predictive power because it correlates with factors such as socioeconomic status, culture, etc., and that information often isn't known in real world situations. This is where the issue of racism gets tricky. Using the predictive utility of skin color isn't necessarily racist imo; attaching an irrationally strong prior (based on skin color because it's usually the first thing you see about someone) and not conditioning effectively on a person's actions is evidence of an actual racist. Of course, this is from a pure predictive utility perspective. In reality, most people have some sense of moral obligation and probably actively work to widen their prior (i.e. "reduce their bias" in common lingo). However, it's necessarily a trade-off in the sense that actively working to widen your prior for the exclusive purpose of fairness (what is promoted by "social progressives"), while noble, necessarily reduces predictive utility. Note that this doesn't mean that people don't often widen their priors from simply learning more (e.g. maybe spending more time around a certain race and realizing their prior was too narrow)--obviously, this is a best case outcome when it happens. The apparent current progressive "correct" prior is a totally flat (uninformative) prior, which I believe to be silly. To be clear, a flat prior would be to claim that a random Chinese and a random white person have an equal chance in a game of Mahjong. If you acknowledge that skin color on a train has any predictive power for crimes in the case where you lack any other information about the person (which is a fairly realistic assumption for strangers on a train... you might be able to see their facial expression, mannerisms, and clothing but that's really about it [and all of those are also correlated with race anyway]), then you're acknowledging that stereotypes about people's skin color have some predictive utility in terms of character (if you accept propensity to commit crime as an indicator of character, which is admittedly an argument of its own). If you recall, the original point was that the word "racist" has become diluted. My argument is that "racist" has been broadened to include "people who harbor stereotypes", which is a rather ridiculous definition as I argued above--as stereotypes are not necessarily "bad", and can increase utility. [I should also note that I argued that the term "racist" has been diluted because it is used by social progressives to defend socially progressive policies from people who agree that diversity is good, but disagree with the progressives on the merits of current socially progressive policy (e.g. probably Damore imo). But we're not discussing that argument here.] Also keep in mind that I'm only making arguments that demonstrate the existence of the "stereotype utility" phenomenon here. Stereotypes are employed hundreds (if not thousands) of times each day by everyone. It's literally impossible to argue what stereotypes are appropriate for each and every situation, so an argument of existence is going to have to make do if we're keeping this discussion general. Obviously, the magnitude of the "stereotype utility" is going to vary drastically from case to case, so making arguments about it in a general discussion makes little sense. In the train scenario, the "stereotype utility" is obviously small, as I've acknowledged in all my posts. In the Mahjong example, the "stereotype utility" is larger.
Let's go back to your original statement:
If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car.
It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens.
This is an absurdity meant to prove I don't know what. You've reduced the 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago to a relatively limited set of variables based entirely on race and an arbitrarily selected geographic region. Are these individuals 90 years old? Maybe they are returning from south side bingo night. Oh, you assumed you were talking about Young Black Males. Are they wearing ties and carrying The New World Translation of the Holy Bible? Are they in their mid 40s and tired, carrying bags of groceries home? Do you think a 40 something restaurant manager carrying groceries and a gaggle of older women with grey hairs still presents a greater risk than "5 other random US citizens?" What's the crime rate for 50 year old black person of either gender compared to 18-25 white unemployed white male? How do you identify an unemployed person? What color is your skin? If you are white are you more or less likely to be killed by a black man per capita or a white man per capita? Are you an old woman or are you a man in a police uniform? How many members of the public do you think know any accurate statistics on any of the questions I asked?
You think being racist sometimes yields utility, and you'd really appreciate it if everyone would stop calling people racist who are racist only sometimes, especially when they were right about it. I'd ask you to offer some real-life examples but I know that you are so far deep in abstraction land that you've lost touch with how stereotypes operate in reality, where one datapoint (skin color) swamps all the other uncountable sensory datapoints that we receive during basic, short interactions with people. People aren't actuaries with sets of data in their interactions.
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 14:25 xDaunt wrote:People who live in the US need to learn English. I don't really like this point, because the US technically does not have an official language. On the other hand, I really don't want to see the US go the way of Canada with Quebec and French...
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 14:31 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:25 xDaunt wrote:People who live in the US need to learn English. I don't really like this point, because the US technically does not have an official language. On the other hand, I really don't want to see the US go the way of Canada with Quebec and French...
You all voted to have New Mexico join the union despite it being a majority Spanish speaking territory. I don't know that you can necessarily ask that Spanish speaking territories be members and later on be upset that you've got Spanish speakers. You bought it, you own it kinda thing. It's part of why "American" and "the United States" don't really fit with xDaunt's vision for America, they're intrinsically multicultural concepts. He'd either have to come up with a new and more exclusive definition of American culture and impose it upon all citizens or make a new state that only allows certain individuals to join.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
