Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Well, this one was from a different young twenty-something steeped in Tumblr leftism, ready to pounce on the slightest "racism" in ways that displayed their serious ignorance.
But they were quite vehement that the people at DC (specifically Julius Schwartz, Dennis O'Neil, and Neal Adams; not that they knew that) were engaged in deliberate racist messaging when they (back in 1971; again, not that they knew that) created an "Eastern" villain (Middle Eastern with some East Asian ancestry, I believe) to threaten the "Western" — and "implicitly white" — Gotham City like some kind of "racial ghoul"… and then named him exactly that. Oh, sure, they deliberately misspelled it to look pseudo-Arabic, but c'mon, "Ra's al Ghul"? It couldn't be any clearer what they really meant.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
18d ago
Modern "reactionary authoritarian governments" are still too modern — I don't recall any of them restoring feudalism and hereditary aristocracy, let alone pre-Reformation attitudes on the role of the Church. Franco was, ultimately, a failure, primarily because he wasn't nearly reactionary enough.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
but murdering the disabled for being a burden is a thing I associate with liberal democracies like Canada
It wouldn't be my disability that would get me executed; that would just get me cut off from the welfare teat and left to starve. No, I'd expect it to be my atheism that would do it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
Is that more or less ridiculous a take than the people who complained that Blazing Saddles was racist?
I'd say only slightly more. The people who complain about Blazing Saddles are generally the sort who can't grasp the use/mention distinction, and also often the sort to argue that certain very bad things should not be depicted in fiction even to condemn them, like the nerd forum (I can't remember which one) that was considering banning any and all mention or discussion of Chainsaw Man, because it depicts
Meanwhile, the person complaining about the "Druish Princess" joke in Spaceballs also thought Brooks's Yiddish accent as Yogurt was Italian, because it's one of those "white ethnic" accents you hear in NYC, right? And "Brooks" isn't the most Jewish-sounding surname, is it? So expecting her to know he's Jewish — and thus the joke is "classic Jewish self-deprecating humor" instead of an "antisemitic microaggression" — is totally unreasonable, and you know what the only kind of non-Jew who bothers to learn and remember who is or isn't Jewish is….
(Now ask me about the "naked Orientalist racism" in Batman comics…)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
In a completely non-racial way, Sydney Sweeney has great genes. In the same way that Saquon Barkley has great genes, that Barack Obama has great genes, that Fedor has great genes, that Lucy Liu has great genes. Great genetics aren't inherently a racial question.
But plenty of people will argue that, racial or not, it is a eugenic position, a Nazi position.
The main example that comes to my mind is a guy who used to comment over on Marginal Revolution under various handles (prior_approval, clockwork_prior, etc.). Any time Tyler Cowen would mention CRISPR or gene therapy, he'd show up to make snide comments calling Cowen a Nazi. He'd invoke his coming from Virginia — home of many of the first eugenics laws — and current residence in Germany — no need to elaborate — as to his personal authority on the matter of the inevitable horrors of any attempt at "genetic improvement", and frequently mention the Grundgesetz, and the guarantee of inviolable human dignity in its unalterable first Article, as to why "Nazis" like Cowen would be stopped, and eventually get what they deserve.
He'd only ever give fragments of an argument amidst the snide denunciations and grand invocations of the Grundgesetz, but if you read enough of his comments (as I did), his argument did come together. It mostly came down to a belief in "eugenics" being a singular entity which must be condemned or approved of as a whole, and there are no lines to be drawn within it (so you must either approve of "genetic improvement" — including the Holocaust — or reject it — including CRISPR-style gene therapies); and that whether or not someone is a "Nazi" comes down to their view on "the Nazi idea." Not a Nazi idea, the Nazi idea; the singular view from which all the other terrible elements follow.
And that idea? The very phrase used in the pun: "good genes." The Nazi idea is that of genetic superiority — that a person's genes can be "better" or "worse" than another's, which follows, logically, from the belief that a gene can be "good" or "bad." The inviolable human dignity guaranteed forever by the Grundgesetz requires the unwavering belief that everyone's genes are equal, and thus every gene is equal. No allele is ever "good" or "bad," ever "better" or "worse" than another.
And why would you ever go through the trouble and effort of modifying human genes, of replacing one allele with another, unless you think the new allele is somehow "better" than the old one? And if you believe that, you're a Nazi, and you'll be dealt with like every other Nazi.
Prior is my primary example because he's the one whose comments I read the most of, back when I read MR occasionally. But I've seen similar views (even less well-argued) from others whenever the topic of genetic modification — or genetic "quality" in general — comes up. Sydney Sweeney, Saquon Barkley, Barack Obama, Fedor, Lucy Liu; their genes are all no better than anyone else's — and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi eugenicist, who must be stopped before they inevitably cause another Holocaust.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
Do we PREFER the world where women unknowingly become debt slaves
For Western and majoritarian values of "we," the answer clearly appears to be yes.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
Only putting the fear of unemployment a-la Rufo can possibly succeed.
Yes, but I don't see the current methods of trying to bring this about working. Because it looks like (as I've seen people argue) so long as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. remain in operation, it is they who will be able to set the broadly-accepted standard for what are valid academic credentials. Got to go Henry VIII at the least.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
People claim that goblins in Harry Potter are an anti-Semitic caricature.
Heck, I've seen people claim that the (decidedly non-mercantile) goblins in Goblin Slayer are an intentional anti-Semitic caricature; on the grounds that (paraphrasing from memory) 'goblins are always, and have always been, nothing but an anti-Semitic caricature — that's why they're depicted with long noses.' (Still not quite as ridiculous a take as the 20-something who complained about "anti-Semitic microaggressions" in a Mel Brooks movie.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
That stupid idea proved a failure with Pakistan and Burma
I think you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh here.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
Has there ever been an insurgency quelled by immiserating the population?
Some of Rome's "counterinsurgency campaigns" against rebellions come to mind — most immediately the Bar Kokhba revolt:
…the last and most devastating of three major Jewish rebellions against the Roman Empire. The revolt took place in the province of Judaea, where rebels led by Simon bar Kokhba succeeded in establishing an independent Jewish state that lasted several years. The revolt was ultimately crushed by the Romans, resulting in the near-depopulation of Judea through mass killings, widespread enslavement, and the displacement of much of the Jewish population.
…
The revolt's consequences were disastrous. Ancient and contemporary sources estimate that hundreds of thousands were killed, while many others were enslaved or exiled. The region of Judea was largely depopulated, and the spiritual center of Jewish life shifted to Galilee and the expanding diaspora. Messianic hopes became more abstract, and rabbinic Judaism adopted a cautious, non-revolutionary stance. The divide between Judaism and early Christianity also deepened. The Romans imposed harsh religious prohibitions, including bans on circumcision and Sabbath observance, expelled Jews from the vicinity of Jerusalem, restricted their entry to one annual visit, and repopulated the city with foreigners.
The famous ending of the Third Servile War comes to mind as well.
And then, of course, there's the sort of things the Assyrians did, like with Ashurnasirpal II.
Martin Van Creveld argued that there's basically two ways to successfully pursue counterinsurgency:
In an attempt to find lessons from the few cases of successful counterinsurgency, of which he lists two clear cases: the British efforts during The Troubles of Northern Ireland and the 1982 Hama massacre carried out by the Syrian government to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, he asserts that the "core of the difficulty is neither military nor political, but moral" and outlines two distinct methods.[34]
The first method relies on superb intelligence, provided by those who know the natural and artificial environment of the conflict as well as the insurgents. Once such superior intelligence is gained, the counterinsurgents must be trained to a point of high professionalism and discipline such that they will exercise discrimination and restraint. Through such discrimination and restraint, the counterinsurgents do not alienate members of the populace besides those already fighting them, while delaying the time when the counterinsurgents become disgusted by their own actions and demoralized.
…
If the prerequisites for the first method – excellent intelligence, superbly trained and disciplined soldiers and police, and an iron will to avoid being provoked into lashing out – are lacking, van Creveld posits that counterinsurgents who still want to win must use the second method exemplified by the Hama massacre. In 1982, the regime of Syrian president Hafez al-Assad was on the point of being overwhelmed by the countrywide insurgency of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Assad sent a Syrian Army division under his brother Rifaat to the city of Hama, known to be the center of the resistance.[citation needed]
Following a counterattack by the Brotherhood, Rifaat used his heavy artillery to demolish the city, killing between 10-25,000 people, including many women and children. Asked by reporters what had happened, Hafez al-Assad exaggerated the damage and deaths, promoted the commanders who carried out the attacks, and razed Hama's well-known great mosque, replacing it with a parking lot. With the Muslim Brotherhood scattered, the population was so cowed that it would be years before opposition groups dared to disobey the regime again and, van Creveld argues, the massacre most likely saved the regime and prevented a bloody civil war.[citation needed]
In short, you can be slow, disciplined, and restrained; or you can be swift, ruthless, and utterly brutal; and the problem is that too many try to do something somewhere in between.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
Not sure this is going to influence anyone - people who already believed Trump is a philandering stupid bald nazi clown etc.. he's already maximally bad in their eyes. Everyone else has tuned out their yammering and they no longer have much of a megaphone to command with the decline in TV viewership.
IME it is influencing some people — primarily elderly Boomers who still watch TV (particularly Fox News). That, and some of the "global satanic-Jewish-pedo conspiracy" Q-anon types a la Vox Day.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
24d ago
to get a car that is like, 500% better?
On what metric are you measuring this?
I'm reminded of a portion of a recent comment over at Jim's blog (by regular commenter Pax Imperialis, who is currently in the military):
The extreme lack of basic nice things is driving me up a wall. Can’t even buy a basic car these days without it being full of shit bells and whistles, the purpose of which I conjecture is to distract from lower modern performance in all the basic qualities expected of a car’s purpose. My dreams of an American muscle car have been crushed. They’re all full of electronic bs inside and the market for affordable new V8s has more or less vanished. It’s like someone claiming how much better the new restroom is because the LED lights up the water coming out of the facets, and that there is music playing inside, but you can’t help but notice the water flow is painfully slower and lower pressure than previous faucets. Damn it, I just want to be able to flush the toilet with one pull of the handle and wash my hands quickly. Not spend minutes waiting for the toilet to regain pressure to flush it the 3rd time and minutes more in front of a lackluster sink.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
No, but if a political system screws people like me or literally kills them, then I do not endorse it.
Well, that depends on how broadly or narrowly, and on which axes, you define "people like me." Because, with respect to my own political preferences, it "screws people like me" if you define that on terms like "people too disabled to work," but not if you define on terms like "Red Tribe Alaskans."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Well, I appreciate the honesty, but why would anyone join you on it?
Well, because probably the majority of people with similar views would benefit from it, for one — indeed, I've had fellow reactionaries argue that the mere fact of my disability means I "don't belong" on the right, despite our shared views; and that, per Spandrell's Bioleninism, my "only place" in politics is "on the Left, voting Dem in exchange for gibs" until the Reaction comes and disposes of subhumans like me.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
I just think that saying "I can fire you for violating my values but you cannot fire me for violating yours" is not a sustainable situation.
Why not? There's plenty of expressions around this — like "rank hath its privileges," or "quod licet Jovi non licet bovi". A samurai could cut down a Japanese peasant who insulted him, but if the peasant was insulted by the samurai instead, said peasant had to just take it. Or consider, say, the Ottoman Empire in its heyday, and what would happen if a Christian or Jew publicly proclaimed something Islam considers blasphemous, versus if a Muslim publicly proclaimed something Christianity or Judaism consider blasphemous.
In fact, that latter pretty much describes why the situation actually is sustainable: because really it's "I can fire you for violating my values because my values are aligned with the Official Religion, but you cannot fire me for violating yours because your values are contrary to the Official Religion."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
25d ago
Yes, I’d say there are definitely people like this — though, as @IGI-111 points out, not in the symmetric way you pose; I’ve gotten that “you support monarchy/aristocracy/reaction only because you think you’d be king/a lord” bit before, and when I turn it back on them — is the only reason you hold your political views because you expect to personally benefit? — it does indeed seem to be projection/typical-minding.
And beyond endorsing both IGI-111 and @Stellula’s replies, I’ll note that I, as a reactionary, have repeatedly responded to the “you think you’ll be king” arguments with acknowledgement that, no, I’ll be dead. As I’ve said more than once, my ideal society would probably have me executed.
I’m well aware that the liberal modernity I oppose is the only thing keeping me alive at all, let alone giving me the lifestyle I currently have, and that come any serious reactionary victory, my life will most likely end (and become massively worse in the case it doesn’t)… and yet I still want that liberal modernity destroyed.
(Has anyone here seen the movie Serenity — the Firefly sequel/conclusion movie? If so, do any of you remember the speech by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s nameless “Operative” character — the “there's no place for me there” one?)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
Yugoslavia.. there was a fair bit of pitched combat there, no?
Pitched, yes, but would you consider those fighting "armies" — particularly if you contrast "insurgencies" as something distinct, as your comment applies.
In any event, you seem to have a pretty narrow and idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes "a real war"; one which, it seems to me, most people do not share.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
doesn't involve continuous high-intensity ground combat between armies.
Did our war in Afghanistan involve "continuous high-intensity ground combat between armies"? For that matter, how about the Yugoslav wars?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
Create a pro-American superhero narrative that gets released to the same theaters that Woke Marvel goes to and I think they’ll at least downplay the Message. Have a pro-American, pro-Western Oikophillic Space Opera (maybe a revived Flash Gordon) release at the same time as Star Wars Old Republic, and when Star Wars flops, they might get the message.
Which is why nobody in the movie biz is going to let that happen. I've read some stuff about how Hollywood works — and particularly the stranglehold of the Big Five - that make it clear the industry functions in many ways like a cartel (particularly in regards to distribution), making it incredibly difficult for "outsiders" to compete. To quote:
Since the dawn of filmmaking, the major American film studios have dominated both American cinema and the global film industry.[5][6] American studios have benefited from a strong first-mover advantage in that they were the first to industrialize filmmaking and master the art of mass-producing and distributing high-quality films with broad cross-cultural appeal.[7] Today, the Big Five majors – Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros., Walt Disney Studios, and Sony Pictures – routinely distribute hundreds of films every year into all significant international markets (that is, where discretionary income is high enough for consumers to afford to watch films). The majors enjoy "significant internal economies of scale" from their "extensive and efficient [distribution] infrastructure,"[8] while it is "nearly impossible" for a film to reach a broad international theatrical audience without being first picked up by one of the majors for distribution.[4] Today, all the Big Five major studios are also members of the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
The migrants you see milling around aimlessly in the public squares of London, Berlin, Rome etc. are largely poor, sporadically criminal, disorganized and disconnected.
Yes, but for how long? Look at the changes in at least British politics — how long before Islamic parties emerge to start providing leadership and organization for those masses.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
Speak plainly; I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or what argument you're trying to make. (And how is simply copy-pasting a quote not "low-effort" at that?)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
try shrooms and more illegal psychedelic drugs
What part of "illegal" (and can't afford, and wouldn't know how to get) and "schizophrenic" (psychedelics and hallucinogens are known to make it much worse) are unclear to you?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
I could have sworn that I'd previously and seriously advised him to see a psychiatrist or therapist IRL.
I've been seeing therapists, and on psych meds, since 2004. This is me with those.
This is excluding the possibility that his life and personal circumstances are utterly FUBAR, which happens more often than I'd like.
I've talked about them on this forum before, if you're willing to search through my posting history to find them.
If you want solutions, they exist.
[Citation needed].
I've been on psych meds and getting therapy since 2004.
Edit:
I don't know you or your life situation.
I've posted on my situation repeatedly here on the Motte (and the subreddit before that, and SSC before that), if you search through my post history.
The objection is that the procedure to edit such an embryo is neither risk-free nor costless. So why, then, would you pursue a costly, risky procedure, unless you think there's something to be gained from it? Putting an embryo at risk of complications for absolutely no reason whatsoever is something that probably should be forbidden, no?
If you truly believe that all genes are equal, then you'd believe that there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever even bother replacing one human gene with another, and thus, no reason whatsoever to spend even the slightest time and effort developing the technology to do so.
This was a key thrust of Prior's whole mass of arguments, and why he chimed in with them any time CRISPR or gene editing came up: anyone who supports (or, for that matter, allows to pass unopposed) any form of research whatsoever into human genetic modification is definitionally a Nazi, and must be dealt with accordingly.
I agree. But then, to folks like Prior, that just makes us two more people who clearly and obviously want another six million murdered.
More options
Context Copy link