@2rafa's banner p

2rafa


				

				

				
15 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 11:20:51 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 841

2rafa


				
				
				

				
15 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 11:20:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 841

Verified Email

This kind of guy was never considered polygamous since polygamy always referred to marriage, and even now amongst Bay Area types refers to some kind of ‘open’ (in the sense that it is not secret) relationship. Similarly, having a secret second family with your secretary/mistress isn’t polygamy because your wife and (original) family don’t know about it.

Calvinist predestination (which is the only truly contentious point out of the five in Calvinism) is basically Schrödinger's cat: the only way to know where one is predestined is to die, and there is a single truth value in the future which cannot be directly known from the past.

If you consistently do really shitty things as a devout Calvinist, can you kind of deduce you’re going to hell?

Polygamy (as opposed to polyamory) is obviously universally hyperfertile for the male, since multiple pregnancies are possible simultaneously and the fact of the polygamy means he’s usually wealthy enough to provide for many children. That it’s hyperfertile for the women depends typically on the fact that only the most trad and/or impoverished women in the modern world will agree to polygamous marriage, and both traits are strongly predictive of fertility rate.

Among polygamous ultra-rich Saudis post-2000 or so, my impression is that the women often have a much more modest number of kids, which I think suggests that tfr (which is of course calculated per woman) is not necessarily elevated by classical polygamy in and of itself.

Consider also that in many healthy straight relationships, a person would be reasonably upset with their partner following a prostitute / pro-promiscuity egirl

I think following on Twitter is a little different to following on OnlyFans, here.

No, you don’t, but I think you got some pushback because people did think you were making fun of them. It’s not a big deal! Sorry that I’ve never thanked you for an argument, I enjoy a lot of your posts.

It’s surely more accurate to say that Greeks are either Slavs or ethnic Turks, as @Pasha suggested last week.

“Even in the most corrupt states of the Union, one cannot steal more than one or two percent of the vote”

But this is exactly it. I think the difference between Trumpist election deniers and more impartial observers of American political history is that the latter acknowledge that

  1. It’s entirely likely that both blue and red counties engage in low level vote count manipulation when results are close, to the tune of that 1-2% figure

  2. None of this is (as your quote indicates) remotely unusual in American political history. This was no special or unique project to stop Trump but rather the same shenanigans that have gone on in every election since 1776. 2020 wasn’t even the most corrupt election in the last fifty years, let alone in American history.

  3. Biden had a ‘plausible’ case for winning and Trump’s defeat wasn’t a case of an implausibly unpopular candidate beating a popular incumbent. The vote was close and could have gone either way, Trump really was historically unpopular for an incumbent at the time, Biden won the popular vote by some margin (this obviously doesn’t make for an EC victory but is illustrative of an at least not-extremely-unpopular-relative-to-their-opponent) and had broad appeal to the Dem base.

  4. Based on the above, nothing that happened in 2020 was unusual in American politics and Trump was not the victim of an ‘unprecedented’ level of election interference to ensure his defeat.

As the 1960 quote reveals, even the most corrupt states can’t make a hugely unpopular candidate popular or vice versa. Thus Trump’s claims that he actually won bigly are false. He got played to a minor extent but he was probably not screwed more than the average presidential loser electorally.

The mods here are very light touch, really (how many times have Hlynka and Count been modded now? They’re still here) and nobody cares about you looking stupid as long as you own up to mistakes. When I get schooled here (which is often) I usually say ‘thanks, fair enough’, either directly or by DM, and/or change my view. Everyone’s been embarrassed here before, I can’t think of one regular who hasn’t written-before-researching and come up against a quality rebuttal at least a few times.

But the line is mockery. Nobody likes to get made fun of, certainly not relentlessly, it’s a respectful environment.

If he wins the popular vote

Even if he wins he is surely unlikely to win the popular vote, given historically unpopular Hillary had 3 million votes on him in 2016.

If he does win the popular vote, I agree given Republican electoral dynamics that means he’s won comfortably and undeniably, but it’s unlikely.

It was a minor internal issue due to the longstanding Arabist sympathies of some upper class British in the foreign office, sure. But few of any people were getting killed about it in Britain, it wasn’t a civil conflict.

However, only 64% of the descendants of immigrants from Algeria and 65% of descendants of immigrants from Morocco and Tunisia currently identify as Muslim.

Surely this is either (a) because pieds-noirs (ie colonial white French who settled in North Africa and returned after / during independence) are included and/or (b) because almost the entire Christian and Jewish population of Francophone North Africa decamped to France at the same time?

If Lindell didn’t trust government authorities to properly investigate election interference claims, he should have also known not to trust the courts to fairly (from his perspective) enforce an arbitration issue about it.

I realize that I’m skirting close to the ‘if pro-lifers really believed abortion was murder, surely they’d…’ argument, but there is a case to be made that this kind of applies to Trump himself. Like, if the deep state stole the election from him once, why would he have any faith they wouldn’t do it again, especially now “they” have the presidency and thus surely even more power and less oversight?

I don’t think Trump is the kind of guy who does something unless he believes he has at least a chance of winning, and I think he does believe he has a chance of winning this year.

That leaves two possibilities. Firstly, that the deep state is too weak or his margin of victory will be too great to cheat him of the presidency again or, secondly, that he never really believed he won the first (well, second) time, but was just using the claim of interference as a political tool (both to rally his supporters and maybe as some kind of gambit to stay in office).

The insinuation is that their goal was to see which Labour MPs would either vote with their party against the SNP motion or defect and vote for a ceasefire. The allegation is that Labour tried to avoid forcing this choice upon its MPs by sabotaging the vote by encouraging the speaker to table their amendment against precedent. The implication is that the Islamists were looking for a list of targets (Labour MPs in constituencies with large Islamic populations who voted against the SNP motion).

I think they should always have been in the main CW thread, which already regularly hosts culture war happenings from other lands.

The only difference in the US is that the open primary system (both for congressional seats and the presidency) means that the equivalent of Nigel Farage can be elected, but is still powerlessly beholden to the bureaucracy.

And yet, despite visiting great injustice upon Muslim lands (freeing Greece, invading and occupying the Ottoman capital, ruling the numerical majority of the world’s Muslims from West Africa to India to Malaya, arguably giving Israel to the Jews) it was only after mass immigration started that things like this began happening domestically.

I think it’s different. The French are at their core less racist but more hostile to Islam than the English or Germans, who care less about Islam but do often have to some extent a primal conception of their ethnos, even if this is subjugated to progressive modernity for now.

Around all but the most PC people in Britain, ‘English’ is a race. If you meet someone and tell someone else about it and they ask quietly ‘well, is he English?’ they are asking whether he is a native, not whether he grew up in England and has a British passport.

By contrast French in France does not only mean ethnic French, and in fact the Francophone wignats had to invent a specific term (‘Francais de souche’ ie ‘French of the [tree] trunk’) to refer to ethnic Frenchmen, a term by the way that even Le Pen explicitly disavowed. The same is true in Germany as in England, ‘ist er Deutsch’ would be understood by most Germans as an ethnic question, not one of nationality.

It’s more about the class of immigrant. Compare American vs British Pakistanis and British vs German Turks.

American Pakistanis largely come from the upper-middle class, do well financially and are often relatively secular. The San Bernardino attack is the major Islamist attack perpetrated by Pakistani-Americans, but most of the others like the Boston Bombing and Pulse nightclub weren’t (afaik). British Pakistanis are much poorer and more religiously conservative because they almost all hail from the small rural city of Mirpur and the surrounding area of Azad Kashmir in Pakistan.

The same dynamic plays out with Turks between the UK (and US) and Germany. Anglosphere Turks are largely secularized middle class immigrants who - in Turkish elections - overwhelmingly vote for secular candidates. German Turks are descended from poor Anatolian peasant laborers, and overwhelmingly vote for the Islamist Erdogan.

It’s less about country of origin and more about class of origin when it comes to Muslim immigrants.

I think the difference is that the great majority of immigration to France (certainly ex-EU immigration) has been Islamic, whereas Britain has seen a great deal of immigrants from other places like India’s Hindu and Sikh communities, China, Nigeria’s Igbos and so on. Most black African immigrants to France are from the French-speaking Muslim Sahel, most to Britain are from Christian West Africa and the largely-Christian Caribbean. What you describe has therefore resulted in the same splitting of immigrant communities, but it just happened between groups rather than within them. Muslims (be they black, Arab or South Asian) vote for and join Labour, while Hindus, Jews and Chinese vote for and increasingly join the Conservatives. Black Caribbean voters are still a core Labour constituency, although Christian Africans are more diverse and several prominent Tory MPs including the Home Secretary (interior minister) and business secretary are black African.

In France the conception is therefore more binary. There is a native French bloc, a few largely irrelevant tradcaths and a Muslim bloc, and so Muslims who assimilate essentially ‘become’ French in the Napoleonic way, having abandoned their previous identity largely. In Britain, it’s more multilateral, with the growing number of senior Indian conservatives like Sunak, Patel, Braverman and so on often perceived as more hostile to Muslims and a Labour Party increasingly reliant on both the Muslim vote and the arguably substantially ‘Islamophobic’ native working class.

I don’t think it makes a big difference. After 9/11 and 7/7 there were a huge number of commentators lauding the French approach of laicite, saying that the French handled Muslim assimilation much better than the Anglos, who had not only invaded Iraq but had clearly done something wrong to be subject to terrorist attacks domestically too.

Then, just a few years later, France became the epicenter of Islamist terrorism in Europe with the Charlie Hebdo attack, the 2015 Paris attacks, the 2016 Nice attack, the Toulouse attack on a Jewish school, the teacher beheading, the priest almost-beheading and so on. Of course, both the US and UK also saw Islamist terror attacks including the Pulse club, the Ariana Grande concert and so on, but France has had both a higher number of incidents and a much higher casualty count. Then, if people remember 2016, the Anglo-American approach of live and let live was widely lauded (especially by the center-left in France, which is pretty rare), whereas the French, who had supposedly discriminated against and annoyed their Muslim population, were criticized for stoking social tensions with burqa bans and tolerating ‘hate speech’ with Charlie Hebdo’s trolling that would have been banned in the UK and would simply not have been published by a mainstream publication in the US.

It doesn’t seem like the approach to assimilation really matters, unless you go Full Xinjiang.

(By the way, while France has a proportionally larger Muslim populations I don’t think it’s “more radicalized”. Some Arab French are radicalized, but the intermarriage rate is much higher, as is the percentage (iirc) who drink. There are millions of entirely secularized French Maghrebis, whereas most British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis remain socially conservative and pretty insular.)

Did the Speaker of the House of Commons alter precedent because he was worried MPs would be murdered if he didn’t?

[Link to BBC live thread]

Parliamentary procedure in Britain is labyrinthine and extremely boring, so I will attempt to summarize briefly the procedure under which the events occurred. To simplify, the Conservative government has a large majority in Parliament, but there are still designated days where opposition parties can put forward motions that will almost certainly never affect government policy but which they want to ‘discuss’ (i.e. use to grandstand to supporters, media and potential voters) in front of the legislature.

Yesterday, it was the Scottish National Party’s turn to discuss a motion calling for (implicitly) a unilateral ceasefire by Israel on Gaza. The SNP’s leader, Humza Yousaf (who is not an MP) has spoken regularly about Palestine, is himself Muslim and has a wife who is Palestinian with family in Gaza. But Scotland itself has only a very small and electorally insignificant Muslim population. The primary reason for the SNP’s motion was that, after various major scandals on everything from transwomen to embezzlement, their grip on Scotland and its fifty parliamentary seats is likely to be significantly weakened at the next general election, with Labour likely to reclaim many seats from them. Labour has not committed itself to a ceasefire in this way, but has called for a “humanitarian pause”, which both sides have admitted is largely a semantic distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. The SNP intended that many pro-Palestinian Labour MPs would vote with them on the motion (which again was seen as having had no chance of actually passing), going against the wishes of their party, making the Labour leader look weak, and hopefully therefore gaining some ground on them ahead of the election.

In a surprise move, the Speaker (who was formerly a Labour MP but must remain officially neutral) allowed Labour to hijack the SNP’s ‘opposition day’ by first allowing a vote on a Labour amendment before the vote on the SNP’s motion. The Labour amendment was largely the same but clarified that Israel ‘could not be expected’ to cease fire until all hostages were released. By convention, one opposition party would not be able to table an amendment to another opposition party’s motion on such a day, only the government can. The procedural details are complicated but essentially the action ensured in practice that the SNP felt their motion wouldn’t come to a vote the way they intended (this is confusing for me, but so much of British parliamentary procedure is essentially arbitrary and malleable that I suppose this is explained by something). The SNP and the Conservatives both walked out in protest (the latter opportunistically, because it allowed them to sidestep the whole ceasefire vote for now, and because they may have been worried their amendment wouldn’t pass), and harshly criticized the speaker, Hoyle, who it turned out was warned by his own clerks that this would happen.

But the question remains why Hoyle, who despite being ex-Labour has retained a relatively positive reputation in the House, accepted Labour’s request for an unprecedented amendment insertion into the SNP’s opposition day motion. What did Starmer (the Labour leader) say to him? This morning, rumors swirled that Starmer had ‘extorted’ Hoyle in some way. There are two ways of interpreting that allegation, if it has any substance.

The first is that Starmer transparently reminded Hoyle of the fact that the speaker is re-elected by each incoming parliament, and that Starmer will almost certainly be the next Prime Minister with a large majority at his disposal. And ultimately, whatever the reason, the act avoided any nasty Labour infighting over the SNP motion that would otherwise have been expected. This seems to be the SNP allegation, that Hoyle did Starmer a political favor both to take the wind out of the SNP’s sails and to avoid discontent in his own party, in exchange for job security at the next election. (Note that if Hoyle was removed as Speaker, he would presumably return to being a Labour MP under Starmer).

The second possibility is darker, and has been alleged openly by many Conservative politicians today. Supposedly, Hoyle is a mild-mannered man who considers himself responsible in part for the safety of MPs. Per this narrative Starmer supposedly showed or related to him death threats made by Muslim constituents to Labour MPs and their families if they didn’t vote for a ceasefire, and suggested on that basis that Hoyle must allow the amendment or, presumably, any assassinations of MPs would be on him. It is only two years since the last MP was assassinated by an Islamist constituent, who explicitly said he did so because he held said MP responsible for the death of Muslims, so Hoyle allegedly went over the advice of his clerks to try to prevent it happening again by letting Labour table their amendment. Of course, this in and of itself could easily just be a manipulation tactic by Labour.

As it is likely in neither Hoyle nor Starmer’s interest to reveal what happened (and if either did, it is questionable whether they could be trusted), the events - for now - are likely to remain the subject of great speculation.

What German speech law does HBD violate? As far as I’m aware there are in fact German evolutionary psychologists who openly argue in favor of HBD, and they haven’t been fined or even fired.

Israel is vastly more Jewish (even counting neighboring Palestinians) than South Africa was white. And I’m not sure your analysis of what happened in Portugal is entirely correct, Angola had a very small white population, many other Portuguese colonies had already been lost (eg in India) and the people in the metropole were tired of their tax money being spent and young men being sent off to die in the colonies. In addition, the regime limped along after Salazar’s death and his replacements were widely disliked within the military.

Hydro is correct that the primary reason apartheid was unsustainable is that the Afrikaners were utterly unable to offer anything much to the rest of the non-Bantu population. Not to the indigenous Khoisan, not to the Indians and Cape Colored (who were also officially lesser under apartheid), and not even to the Anglos and Jews, who dominated business but who were systematically discriminated against in government and had to deal with corruption and kickbacks to the Afrikaners (not to mention spurious lawsuits, fines and other harassment) who ran the National Party, all of which built up a huge amount of resentment.

So - unlike the Alawites in Syria - it was unclear to non-Afrikaners in South Africa that they were going to ‘get massacred’ if popular democracy was implemented. Remember also that this was in the early 90s, a decade before Mugabe started seizing white land, and when whites in Botswana, Namibia and so on appeared to be doing fine under black-majority rule.

None of this is to dispute the fact that, yes, a sufficiently motivated bloc of 4 million Afrikaners probably could have held South Africa indefinitely (even under sanctions, given the nation’s bountiful natural resources and the fact that the Israelis and others would have continued buying from them). But there was little popular desire for that, in part because the pressure valve of emigration back to the West was open.

HBD certainly isn’t illegal in Germany. Germany has relatively liberal speech laws on anything except things related to 1933-1945, which tend to fit into two categories (the Holocaust/antisemitism and ‘advocating the overthrow of democracy/the constitution’). For garden variety un-PC speak Germany is probably better than anywhere in the Anglosphere except the United States, admittedly a low bar. Germany actually has very strong protections against being fired for political speech for example, Höcke was legally declared a fascist, called the Holocaust memorial a disgrace etc but is still technically a registered high school teacher (he doesn’t teach on account of his political election). All the SPD could do was declare that if he returned to teaching they would try their best to have him fired, but it’s unclear they could do so.

I disagree. If anything, the mean writing quality of the weekly thread has undoubtedly improved since we left Reddit, and I say that as someone who was extremely skeptical of that move and argued against it consistently.

Go back to the CW threads from 2020 or 2019 and they’re stuffed full of low effort drive-by posting from default redditors (of all political persuasions). Low quality writing, bad argumentation, random schizoposting, autism, baiting, boring incelposting, /pol/ trolling, all the usual stuff was commonplace. Seriously, go back and check! (Some was surely moderated, but not all.)

At that time, while the board was still very high quality compared to other Internet forums in general, I’d say it was probably still substantially below a good LW or SSC comments section, perhaps even a good HN comments section. Today the above three have all declined, but The Motte has at least held its ground. As I said last time this was brought up, there is nowhere better on the public internet. Yeah, perhaps you have access to Moldbug’s secret elite discord server populated solely by intellectual titans, but I’m gonna say it - a lot of people here write better than Yarvin does, so I’m not sure I’d frequent it even if I had access to it, and I very much doubt it has better moderators than we do.

I’ve been here since something like 2015 or 2016, almost a third of my life. In that time I have yet to find a superior online locale for English-language politics and current affairs discussion. Believe me I’ve tried and There Is Nothing. So I guess I’ll be here until the end.