|
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. |
I can't wait until the Cultural Homogeneity board is instituted at the Federal Government level. Will it be staffed with Small Government Constitutional Conservatives? Will infractions against the dominant White culture be met with simple street violence by state thugs? Or will there be some kind of due process system whereby the finances of free thinkers are drained by endless bureaucratic processes?
EDIT: PS: anyone who advocates cultural homogeneity and/or conformity is laughably against free speech rights. Just LOL at any time xDaunt ever talks about free speech ever again. Cultural revolutions have been tried in Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia, and to some extent in the revolutionary areas of the middle east.
|
On August 17 2017 02:52 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:46 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:
[quote]
I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example.
But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. Also HE was right that there are biological reasons for why there are fewer women in tech (note that he never argued that those who are there do worse, he said multiple times that all women who are there are 100% as qualified as men). Google flat out denying this is simply denying actual science, which for me is absolutely shocking for this company. Check out this meta analysis: https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/(short summary but please read yourself): In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed above, Damore seems to be correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. Another interesting link: I’m An Ex-Google Woman Tech Leader And I’m Sick Of Our Approach To Diversity! https://medium.com/the-mission/im-an-ex-google-woman-tech-leader-and-i-m-sick-of-our-approach-to-diversity-17008c5fe999 This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life. The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous. Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home. He never said that biology makes it "harder for women to code". This is an extremely important detail because that would make his memo both untrue and sexist. If he said or even hinted at such a conclusion he should absolutely be fired. What he said was that women are less likely to choose a career in tech because on average women prefer working with people over working with things. But once chosen they are as good as men. And that is well documented over many studies in many countries. You've not really addressed what Kwark is saying in any way shape or form!
I assume you mean that Kwark's main point was that Damore should not have said anything in the first place. While this is his main point it is more important to get the facts straight first. Damore never at any point said that women are worse coders or otherwise do a worse job than men. He did not imply it or hint at it in any way, shape or form. But that is what is being portrayed by large parts of the media and is now being repeated by Kwark. This is untrue and of course it needs to be called out before continuing with the discussion.
Another thing that needs to be said is that he wrote the memo it in his free time, not during paid hours. It is a bit unclear if Kwark was hinting at that with his "He had a job to do" part. Probably Kwark was not saying that, but to avoid misunderstandings I wanted to clarify that he actually did a good job at google overall and did not waste paid time writing the memo.
So Kwark's main point is saying that he should have kept his opinion (that Kwark misrepresented) at home. But again, if that was the reason why he got in trouble then he would have gotten at least in some form of trouble BEFORE the memo went viral. But the memo circulated around Google for a month without any form of reprecussions, warning or other signs that Google was not happy with him writing about his concerns.
It was not until the memo became viral that Google decided to fire him. And that brings us back to the dishonest media. I mean I wish Google stood up for their employee but for a company it is kind of understandable that they chose to act like that.
Google fired him because the mere act of discussing biological differences between men and women was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media. Even though the points that he made were backed up by major scientific researches across many cultures and uttered in a respectful manner it was deemed "wrongthink" to suggest that the overrepresentation of women in social jobs and their underrepresentation in tech is partly due to preference and not just due to discrimination.
This seems just insane to me. Well-sourced scientific positions presented in a respectful manner should never lead to such a condemnation from the media.
|
Does anyone remember that fun debate we had a few pages ago where team Conservative didn't even bother coming up with dirt on Antifa at Charlottesville? They had seen some stuff on DailerCaller and that was good enough evidence for team Conservative. They didn't even bother linking some Breitbart fan fiction.
But I finally have an eyewitness! After the police simply let the Nazis harass and surround small groups of defenseless students, some of the Nazis went after some pacifist clergy. Antifa broke a Nazi charge and kept the Nazis from beating some pacifist clergy bloody. Anyone who says BOTH SIDES is lying.
+ Show Spoiler +
The wrong story is being reported and even Progressives are complicit in perpetuating a false narrative.
There are ONLY two sides to this. The White Supremacists with their Republican enablers are the wrong side. Everyone else needs to pull together despite our differences.
When I followed the call from Congregate C'Ville for clergy to come defend Charlottesville from Nazis l knew my belief in nonviolence was well grounded, solid. Frankly, I had no patience with anyone advocating violence to advance social justice (this is an issue of tactics not self defense).
I am still stalwart in my devotion to nonviolence but now, after Charlottesville, the story is more complex and nuanced.
Please bear with me, I believe this is important and will not be short.
First what happened:
We were called to help and many of us, perhaps a couple hundred, volunteered to risk arrest standing to prevent Nazis entering the park for a major rally designed to intimidate the community of Charlottesville.
This rally to be was not an isolated event that could be ignored. This was to be the culmination of many weeks of intimidation. This town has been under siege. Bands of Nazi and KKK have been entering cafes or swaggering through the streets and following people to their cars with guns on display. The state has done nothing to protect Charlottesville citizens from threats. We could not allow this to become the new normal. We hoped that by taking a stand and being arrested for doing the state's job, the state would be embarrassed into doing their job to protect people.
Friday night almost a thousand people met in St. Paul's Memorial Church for a Prayer Service in preparation to confront the next day's racist rally. Nearly two hundred of us had received nonviolent civil disobedience training earlier in the day. We were prepared for arrest.
Everything changed.
Hundreds of Nazis surrounded a much smaller group of student protestors across the street from our church. The police did nothing. Nazis pelted students with flaming tiki torches. The police did nothing. A group of Nazis broke off and came outside our church to intimidate us and block our exit. We called the police. They did nothing.
We were prepared for arrest but if the police do nothing that only leaves us at the mercy of the Nazis.
Leadership had always emphasized that in addition to arrest there was the possibility of injury. With police inaction, the threat level was reassessed to likely injury, possibility of death.
By morning monitoring of the situation increased the danger level again. We had hoped to have hundreds blocking access to the park. Facing police is one thing. Facing Nazis with police nearby to intervene is another story. Facing Nazis with police nearby who will NOT intervene is a whole another story.
After standing in line before the militia as a relatively large group and sharing prayers or statements for justice, a smaller group proceeded to the stairs on the only open entrance to the park. 19 clergy and one atheist intended to symbolically block roving bands of Nazis from returning to the hundreds gathered behind us.
A group of Nazis advanced towards us. A band of AntiFa stepped up to defend the clergy, we asked them to step back and allow us to make our nonviolent stand. They respected our request and reluctantly backed off. We were actually surprised they complied. They said that they disagreed with our tactics but appreciated and respected us. Respect breeds respect. After perhaps a hundred Nazis broke through our line we regrouped but an even larger Nazi force started towards us. The AntiFa rushed in and broke the Nazi charge. We did not ask for them. We were prepared to be beaten. However, we all respected that they defended us in love despite our disagreement on tactics. They certainly saved 19 clergy and me from a brutal beating and likely even death. They did what the police would not do all day. They defended innocent lives. I cannot criticize them for that. I thank them. When this happens again, we will ask them to stand down again but I will not paint them all with a broad violent brush. Many of these people are more like our fathers in WWII than the hooligans they are portrayed as.
We don't have to agree with each other.
We don't even have to understand each other.
But to defeat the rising tide of White Supremacism in our country we much respect our allies in struggle and hopefully coordinate and cooperate but at least not cut each other down.
That will be hard. We're all angry and frustrated and frayed. Some of us will lash out. Try to understand when this happens. Try to receive the verbal blow and perhaps learn something. Maybe I need a good kick in the pants despite my good intentions. Maybe they're just mistaken or lashing out. Either way shouting back won't help.
Let's try to work together.
I used to be a purist on nonviolence in protests. I still am but I'm not going to harshly judge people who may have saved my life out of love just because some were also itching for a fight with those who promote outright murder.
It just might be the case that the civil rights victories of the 60s may have required Malcom X, MLK Jr. and Black Power in all its manifestations.
I really don't know but I ain't judging anybody, including AntiFa, any more if they're fighting for justice.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=288035958271449&id=100011951417392
|
On August 17 2017 14:48 Wulfey_LA wrote:Does anyone remember that fun debate we had a few pages ago where team Conservative didn't even bother coming up with dirt on Antifa at Charlottesville? They had seen some stuff on DailerCaller and that was good enough evidence for team Conservative. They didn't even bother linking some Breitbart fan fiction. But I finally have an eyewitness! After the police simply let the Nazis harass and surround small groups of defenseless students, some of the Nazis went after some pacifist clergy. Antifa broke a Nazi charge and kept the Nazis from beating some pacifist clergy bloody. Anyone who says BOTH SIDES is lying. + Show Spoiler +
The wrong story is being reported and even Progressives are complicit in perpetuating a false narrative.
There are ONLY two sides to this. The White Supremacists with their Republican enablers are the wrong side. Everyone else needs to pull together despite our differences.
When I followed the call from Congregate C'Ville for clergy to come defend Charlottesville from Nazis l knew my belief in nonviolence was well grounded, solid. Frankly, I had no patience with anyone advocating violence to advance social justice (this is an issue of tactics not self defense).
I am still stalwart in my devotion to nonviolence but now, after Charlottesville, the story is more complex and nuanced.
Please bear with me, I believe this is important and will not be short.
First what happened:
We were called to help and many of us, perhaps a couple hundred, volunteered to risk arrest standing to prevent Nazis entering the park for a major rally designed to intimidate the community of Charlottesville.
This rally to be was not an isolated event that could be ignored. This was to be the culmination of many weeks of intimidation. This town has been under siege. Bands of Nazi and KKK have been entering cafes or swaggering through the streets and following people to their cars with guns on display. The state has done nothing to protect Charlottesville citizens from threats. We could not allow this to become the new normal. We hoped that by taking a stand and being arrested for doing the state's job, the state would be embarrassed into doing their job to protect people.
Friday night almost a thousand people met in St. Paul's Memorial Church for a Prayer Service in preparation to confront the next day's racist rally. Nearly two hundred of us had received nonviolent civil disobedience training earlier in the day. We were prepared for arrest.
Everything changed.
Hundreds of Nazis surrounded a much smaller group of student protestors across the street from our church. The police did nothing. Nazis pelted students with flaming tiki torches. The police did nothing. A group of Nazis broke off and came outside our church to intimidate us and block our exit. We called the police. They did nothing.
We were prepared for arrest but if the police do nothing that only leaves us at the mercy of the Nazis.
Leadership had always emphasized that in addition to arrest there was the possibility of injury. With police inaction, the threat level was reassessed to likely injury, possibility of death.
By morning monitoring of the situation increased the danger level again. We had hoped to have hundreds blocking access to the park. Facing police is one thing. Facing Nazis with police nearby to intervene is another story. Facing Nazis with police nearby who will NOT intervene is a whole another story.
After standing in line before the militia as a relatively large group and sharing prayers or statements for justice, a smaller group proceeded to the stairs on the only open entrance to the park. 19 clergy and one atheist intended to symbolically block roving bands of Nazis from returning to the hundreds gathered behind us.
A group of Nazis advanced towards us. A band of AntiFa stepped up to defend the clergy, we asked them to step back and allow us to make our nonviolent stand. They respected our request and reluctantly backed off. We were actually surprised they complied. They said that they disagreed with our tactics but appreciated and respected us. Respect breeds respect. After perhaps a hundred Nazis broke through our line we regrouped but an even larger Nazi force started towards us. The AntiFa rushed in and broke the Nazi charge. We did not ask for them. We were prepared to be beaten. However, we all respected that they defended us in love despite our disagreement on tactics. They certainly saved 19 clergy and me from a brutal beating and likely even death. They did what the police would not do all day. They defended innocent lives. I cannot criticize them for that. I thank them. When this happens again, we will ask them to stand down again but I will not paint them all with a broad violent brush. Many of these people are more like our fathers in WWII than the hooligans they are portrayed as.
We don't have to agree with each other.
We don't even have to understand each other.
But to defeat the rising tide of White Supremacism in our country we much respect our allies in struggle and hopefully coordinate and cooperate but at least not cut each other down.
That will be hard. We're all angry and frustrated and frayed. Some of us will lash out. Try to understand when this happens. Try to receive the verbal blow and perhaps learn something. Maybe I need a good kick in the pants despite my good intentions. Maybe they're just mistaken or lashing out. Either way shouting back won't help.
Let's try to work together.
I used to be a purist on nonviolence in protests. I still am but I'm not going to harshly judge people who may have saved my life out of love just because some were also itching for a fight with those who promote outright murder.
It just might be the case that the civil rights victories of the 60s may have required Malcom X, MLK Jr. and Black Power in all its manifestations.
I really don't know but I ain't judging anybody, including AntiFa, any more if they're fighting for justice.
Why should I believe this person?
|
On August 17 2017 14:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:31 Kyadytim wrote: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.
Will Spanish speakers who live in the United States benefit from learning English? Probably.
Should we make it a legal obligation for everyone to communicate in English while in this country? Of course not. Let people do what they want as long as it's not negatively affecting others... And better yet, we could make Learning English courses readily available for those who wish to take them (and perhaps are not able to enroll in a traditional school). That's far more helpful than ordering some sort of scary, xenophobic mandate.
I feel like the whole "United States must declare an official language of English" issue is another one of those counterexamples (just like abortion, gay marriage, and practicing non-Christian religions) to the claim that conservatives are always in favor of minimizing government interference. That's not true; they would just prefer to have the government focus on the things they want.
|
On August 17 2017 14:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:31 Kyadytim wrote: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.
I'm not upset. I learned Spanish in high school and still remember enough to get by with someone who speaks Spanish fluently and English around as well as I speak Spanish. I was trying to use humor to express an understanding of the desire to not be able to communicate with people you interact with.
I used Quebec as an example because they have been fighting legal battles over language for a while now, and while they're fairly absurd to an outside observer, they're also a glimpse at what might happen in the US if states get a little too zealous about trying to make English the only language spoken. Let's face it. The British would never stop laughing at us if the US started trying to preserve the English language.
|
On August 17 2017 14:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:48 Wulfey_LA wrote:Does anyone remember that fun debate we had a few pages ago where team Conservative didn't even bother coming up with dirt on Antifa at Charlottesville? They had seen some stuff on DailerCaller and that was good enough evidence for team Conservative. They didn't even bother linking some Breitbart fan fiction. But I finally have an eyewitness! After the police simply let the Nazis harass and surround small groups of defenseless students, some of the Nazis went after some pacifist clergy. Antifa broke a Nazi charge and kept the Nazis from beating some pacifist clergy bloody. Anyone who says BOTH SIDES is lying. + Show Spoiler +
The wrong story is being reported and even Progressives are complicit in perpetuating a false narrative.
There are ONLY two sides to this. The White Supremacists with their Republican enablers are the wrong side. Everyone else needs to pull together despite our differences.
When I followed the call from Congregate C'Ville for clergy to come defend Charlottesville from Nazis l knew my belief in nonviolence was well grounded, solid. Frankly, I had no patience with anyone advocating violence to advance social justice (this is an issue of tactics not self defense).
I am still stalwart in my devotion to nonviolence but now, after Charlottesville, the story is more complex and nuanced.
Please bear with me, I believe this is important and will not be short.
First what happened:
We were called to help and many of us, perhaps a couple hundred, volunteered to risk arrest standing to prevent Nazis entering the park for a major rally designed to intimidate the community of Charlottesville.
This rally to be was not an isolated event that could be ignored. This was to be the culmination of many weeks of intimidation. This town has been under siege. Bands of Nazi and KKK have been entering cafes or swaggering through the streets and following people to their cars with guns on display. The state has done nothing to protect Charlottesville citizens from threats. We could not allow this to become the new normal. We hoped that by taking a stand and being arrested for doing the state's job, the state would be embarrassed into doing their job to protect people.
Friday night almost a thousand people met in St. Paul's Memorial Church for a Prayer Service in preparation to confront the next day's racist rally. Nearly two hundred of us had received nonviolent civil disobedience training earlier in the day. We were prepared for arrest.
Everything changed.
Hundreds of Nazis surrounded a much smaller group of student protestors across the street from our church. The police did nothing. Nazis pelted students with flaming tiki torches. The police did nothing. A group of Nazis broke off and came outside our church to intimidate us and block our exit. We called the police. They did nothing.
We were prepared for arrest but if the police do nothing that only leaves us at the mercy of the Nazis.
Leadership had always emphasized that in addition to arrest there was the possibility of injury. With police inaction, the threat level was reassessed to likely injury, possibility of death.
By morning monitoring of the situation increased the danger level again. We had hoped to have hundreds blocking access to the park. Facing police is one thing. Facing Nazis with police nearby to intervene is another story. Facing Nazis with police nearby who will NOT intervene is a whole another story.
After standing in line before the militia as a relatively large group and sharing prayers or statements for justice, a smaller group proceeded to the stairs on the only open entrance to the park. 19 clergy and one atheist intended to symbolically block roving bands of Nazis from returning to the hundreds gathered behind us.
A group of Nazis advanced towards us. A band of AntiFa stepped up to defend the clergy, we asked them to step back and allow us to make our nonviolent stand. They respected our request and reluctantly backed off. We were actually surprised they complied. They said that they disagreed with our tactics but appreciated and respected us. Respect breeds respect. After perhaps a hundred Nazis broke through our line we regrouped but an even larger Nazi force started towards us. The AntiFa rushed in and broke the Nazi charge. We did not ask for them. We were prepared to be beaten. However, we all respected that they defended us in love despite our disagreement on tactics. They certainly saved 19 clergy and me from a brutal beating and likely even death. They did what the police would not do all day. They defended innocent lives. I cannot criticize them for that. I thank them. When this happens again, we will ask them to stand down again but I will not paint them all with a broad violent brush. Many of these people are more like our fathers in WWII than the hooligans they are portrayed as.
We don't have to agree with each other.
We don't even have to understand each other.
But to defeat the rising tide of White Supremacism in our country we much respect our allies in struggle and hopefully coordinate and cooperate but at least not cut each other down.
That will be hard. We're all angry and frustrated and frayed. Some of us will lash out. Try to understand when this happens. Try to receive the verbal blow and perhaps learn something. Maybe I need a good kick in the pants despite my good intentions. Maybe they're just mistaken or lashing out. Either way shouting back won't help.
Let's try to work together.
I used to be a purist on nonviolence in protests. I still am but I'm not going to harshly judge people who may have saved my life out of love just because some were also itching for a fight with those who promote outright murder.
It just might be the case that the civil rights victories of the 60s may have required Malcom X, MLK Jr. and Black Power in all its manifestations.
I really don't know but I ain't judging anybody, including AntiFa, any more if they're fighting for justice.
Why should I believe this person?
Check his profile. He puts a lot of info out there. Nothing on there says he would make up lies to defend Antifa of all things. He looks like he could be a pacifist from the pictures he has on there. EDIT: he has pictures of him being part of the clergy at charlottesville.
|
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.
Capital flows seem to necessitate cultural mixing at this point. Why do you think I was emphasizing the imperial nature of American global power? Capital increasingly relies upon the barbarian energies of the immigrant hordes, just as it increasingly relies upon the uncontrollable generative capacities of "disruptive" non-linear technologies.
Capital only triumphs when it becomes identified with the state, when it is the state.
-Fernand Braudel
What makes you think that it is possible to put this genie back in its bottle without completely disrupting the world economy? I know Sermolaka has taken the approach, "if it doesn't kill me it can only make me stronger" and is now more confident than ever that growth will go on forever, but long-term zero or negative growth capitalism is an impossibility. Since David Ricardo everyone has been making fun of mercantilism, but it's a rational strategy in a world of limited wealth.
There are quite a lot of similarities I think between the "fundamentalisms" of ISIS and the white supremacists. Because they are both reactionary losers in the globalism game, but also because fundamentalists cut themselves off from so-called "rational discourse." It is kind of frightening to listen to the Nazis speak and to know that no real communication is possible. Pluralism is only possible under the conceit of a common language community, or interpretive community, where "rational discourse" is at least intelligible to the other side despite differing metaphysical commitments. Under dissolving norms and irreconcilable assumptions what is left? Schmittian political theology? Isn't that Donald Trump, exactly? He is the "charismatic" meme leader who doesn't have to say anything either because (he's an idiot) who won't be understood by the other side anyway or because within his own community there is nothing left to be said (i.e. everyone already understands or knows).
|
On August 17 2017 14:56 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 14:31 Kyadytim wrote: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. I'm not upset. I learned Spanish in high school and still remember enough to get by with someone who speaks Spanish fluently and English around as well as I speak Spanish. I was trying to use humor to express an understanding of the desire to not be able to communicate with people you interact with. I used Quebec as an example because they have been fighting legal battles over language for a while now, and while they're fairly absurd to an outside observer, they're also a glimpse at what might happen in the US if states get a little too zealous about trying to make English the only language spoken. Let's face it. The British would never stop laughing at us if the US started trying to preserve the English language.
Quebec is kind of the exact opposite of what xDaunt is talking about, though. They're legally forcing cultural diversity from the rest of the country, not homogeneity. Now, granted, the whole Quebec cultural issue is a giant mess in itself, with terrorism at a couple points along the line as well.
The equivalent would be like if New Mexico started throwing around laws to preserve Spanish in their state (and yes, including things like forcing businesses and retailers to use Spanish names), as opposed to all of America forcing every region to conform to some pillar of "American culture" (jury out on who xDaunt would want to use as the model).
|
This was too good to pass up. Some humor.
Donald Trump has insisted the Rebel Alliance must take their share of the blame for the violence in the Star Wars universe after revealing the Empire had all the necessary permits to gather at the Death Star.
Speaking to reporters to clarify his position on the violent battles fought between the two sides, Trump explained that the fake news media are ignoring all the good people inside in the Empire.
“I don’t see anyone talking about the bad people inside the Rebel Alliance charging at the Death Star even though it had all the necessary paperwork in place and was allowed to be there.
“The Empire followed the rules, and went about its business within the rule of law, is that so wrong? Are we criticising people for obeying the law now?
“If we’re going to blow up Death Stars just because they’re symbols of oppression, what next? The Sith Temple on Korriban?”
Source
|
On August 17 2017 15:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:56 Kyadytim wrote:On August 17 2017 14:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 14:31 Kyadytim wrote: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. I'm not upset. I learned Spanish in high school and still remember enough to get by with someone who speaks Spanish fluently and English around as well as I speak Spanish. I was trying to use humor to express an understanding of the desire to not be able to communicate with people you interact with. I used Quebec as an example because they have been fighting legal battles over language for a while now, and while they're fairly absurd to an outside observer, they're also a glimpse at what might happen in the US if states get a little too zealous about trying to make English the only language spoken. Let's face it. The British would never stop laughing at us if the US started trying to preserve the English language. Quebec is kind of the exact opposite of what xDaunt is talking about, though. They're legally forcing cultural diversity from the rest of the country, not homogeneity. Now, granted, the whole Quebec cultural issue is a giant mess in itself, with terrorism at a couple points along the line as well. The equivalent would be like if New Mexico started throwing around laws to preserve Spanish in their state (and yes, including things like forcing businesses and retailers to use Spanish names), as opposed to all of America forcing every region to conform to some pillar of "American culture" (jury out on who xDaunt would want to use as the model).
I wouldn't call it "forcing cultural diversity", but rather forcing the federal government to grant their provincial government more forms of autonomy (as bad as that turned out to be for their economy). If anything, that has decreased diversity or allowed it to stagnate as a result of people being discouraged to immigrate or migrate to Quebec. But yes, what you said about Quebec and New Mexico is otherwise about right.
Canadian political derailments aside, I think if Hispanophonic New Mexicans wanted to lobby for Quebec-style language laws, it would be well within their rights (although would be a bad idea economically), but would immediately be met with white nationalist backlash.
It just goes to highlight how ridiculous all the paranoid, delusional xenophobia in the US is, when you look at how Canada had to deal with literal terrorism, however incompetent it was, from Quebec separatists and still ended up giving concessions "okay you guys can have a referendum and a nation-within-a-nation symbolic status and language laws and whatever else you like and we'll just give you equalization payments when your economy tanks", while in the US there are no minorities demanding special status and yet you have members of the racial majority complaining about oppression--and to top it off we get all these "no i'm not a racist but i think these guys kind of have a point" people. To the rest of the developed world the US is a circus of absurdity.
|
On August 17 2017 15:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 14:25 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Capital flows seem to necessitate cultural mixing at this point. Why do you think I was emphasizing the imperial nature of American global power? Capital increasingly relies upon the barbarian energies of the immigrant hordes, just as it increasingly relies upon the uncontrollable generative capacities of "disruptive" non-linear technologies. Capital only triumphs when it becomes identified with the state, when it is the state.-Fernand Braudel What makes you think that it is possible to put this genie back in its bottle without completely disrupting the world economy? I know Sermolaka has taken the approach, "if it doesn't kill me it can only make me stronger" and is now more confident than ever that growth will go on forever, but long-term zero or negative growth capitalism is an impossibility. Since David Ricardo everyone has been making fun of mercantilism, but it's a rational strategy in a world of limited wealth. There are quite a lot of similarities I think between the "fundamentalisms" of ISIS and the white supremacists. Because they are both reactionary losers in the globalism game, but also because fundamentalists cut themselves off from so-called "rational discourse." It is kind of frightening to listen to the Nazis speak and to know that no real communication is possible. Pluralism is only possible under the conceit of a common language community, or interpretive community, where "rational discourse" is at least intelligible to the other side despite differing metaphysical commitments. Under dissolving norms and irreconcilable assumptions what is left? Schmittian political theology? Isn't that Donald Trump, exactly? He is the "charismatic" meme leader who doesn't have to say anything either because (he's an idiot) who won't be understood by the other side anyway or because within his own community there is nothing left to be said (i.e. everyone already understands or knows).
I do wonder if these intellectual appeals are any more effective at getting the message across than some of the more low-brow styled posts.
All I know is that we had a black president, AG, etc... Racism is definitely a thing of the past.
|
On August 17 2017 07:31 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. 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. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones. Do you have some sources or do we just have to take your word for it?
It's called statistics. Even if black people are twice as likely to be criminals as white people (which they're not), demographics still make it far far far more likely that there's more white criminals on that train than black criminals.
|
On August 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:
"multiple ethnostates" sounds like the setting for some fictional dystopian Young Adult Novel involving a brown haired white girl with a spear that that will save everyone if she can just get over this love triangle with two deeply boring boys.
Actually, it sounds like apartheid South Africa. But I'm sure homelands and ethnostates are completely different!
|
On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white.
And Hitler wasn't Aryan. What's your point?
But I digress. In what world is this guy:
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Vox_Day_by_Tracy_White_promo_pic.jpg/220px-Vox_Day_by_Tracy_White_promo_pic.jpg )
Not white? Only blond haired blue eyed ppl can be white supremacists?
EDIT: in fact, this is such hilarious fake news, I couldn't resist typing his name into Google Images, and found some real classics. This is going into history as that day xDaunt claimed a pasty-faced neo-nazi is "not white". Remeber to bookmark that post for future references!
+ Show Spoiler +Prominently featured on his twitter account, his new hairstyle. Straight from American History X! ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B37q67DIgAEwuhu.jpg) And, just in case there was doubt, here's a color photo which I will title "submission to the pasty-faced basement dweller of the year competition": ![[image loading]](http://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/vdgrimace.png?resize=600%2C339)
|
On August 17 2017 18:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:31 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. 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. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones. Do you have some sources or do we just have to take your word for it? It's called statistics. Even if black people are twice as likely to be criminals as white people (which they're not), demographics still make it far far far more likely that there's more white criminals on that train than black criminals.
The thing I was interested in getting a source for was this:
We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate.
Thanks for the clarification on how basic sampling works though - but to spare you the trouble in the future: I have a PhD in pharmacoepidemiology and I teach statistical methods at the university.
|
On August 17 2017 18:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. And Hitler wasn't Aryan. What's your point? But I digress. In what world is this guy: Not white? Only blond haired blue eyed ppl can be white supremacists? EDIT: in fact, this is such hilarious fake news, I couldn't resist typing his name into Google Images, and found some real classics. This is going into history as that day xDaunt claimed a pasty-faced neo-nazi is "not white". Remeber to bookmark that post for future references! + Show Spoiler +Prominently featured on his twitter account, his new hairstyle. Straight from American History X! And, just in case there was doubt, here's a color photo which I will title "submission to the pasty-faced basement dweller of the year competition":
FAKE NEWS! I saw the raw original pic, and he is black. Or maybe it was the negative. Same thing anyway.
|
The guy thinks marital rape isn't real. He is a check box misogynistic white supremacist.
|
On August 17 2017 18:16 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 18:02 Acrofales wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. 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. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones. Do you have some sources or do we just have to take your word for it? It's called statistics. Even if black people are twice as likely to be criminals as white people (which they're not), demographics still make it far far far more likely that there's more white criminals on that train than black criminals. The thing I was interested in getting a source for was this: Show nested quote +We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. Thanks for the clarification on how basic sampling works though - but to spare you the trouble in the future: I have a PhD in pharmacoepidemiology and I teach statistical methods at the university.
Drug use is the most frequently sampled, but loitering, trespassing, disorderly conduct, and similar offenses show the same patterns.
NEWARK – Black people were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than White people in Jersey City in 2013 for low-level offenses such as loitering, possession of small amounts of marijuana, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, according to a study (PDF) released today by the ACLU of New Jersey.
This extreme racial disparity was not unique to the state’s second largest city. Data for the most recent years available revealed disparities in low-level arrests in the three other municipalities studied – Millville, where Blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested; Elizabeth, 3.4 times; and New Brunswick, 2.6 times. Disparities in the number of arrests between Hispanics/Latinos and Whites also were significant, where data were available. Not all of the departments tracked ethnicity in their arrest data.
Source
|
On August 17 2017 18:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:
"multiple ethnostates" sounds like the setting for some fictional dystopian Young Adult Novel involving a brown haired white girl with a spear that that will save everyone if she can just get over this love triangle with two deeply boring boys. Actually, it sounds like apartheid South Africa. But I'm sure homelands and ethnostates are completely different!
South Africa, the land of perfect racism. Sounds about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
