Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
User ID: 1719
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
1mo ago
The reason to repeal it is that the use of "disparate impact" and "hostile work environment" in discrimination investigations have been disastrous for society, as Richard Hanania's book argues. Repealing the CRA would be the quickest way to fix the problem, and it'll be the only way if the Supreme Court reaffirms disparate impact.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
1mo ago
Autocorrect is a bitch. I meant positive discrimination, i.e. going out of your way to hire people from protected groups. Griggs brought affirmative action into the private sector by making it potentially illegal to have any hiring standard that created a disparate impact. I say "potentially" because you could still prove your standards were necessary after being dragged to court to pay legal fees.
New York recently had to pay out insane amounts of money because they were demanding unnecessarily high reading and writing skills from public school teachers.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
1mo ago
The main argument against repealing the Civil Rights Act is that if people have the option to discriminate against racial minorities in jobs, housing, and school admissions, they will do so. In order to know if this is true, we would need to look at a country that has a similar racial mix to America, but no anti-discrimination laws, then compare the life outcomes of Africans or other historically oppressed groups in America to their life outcomes in that country.
Can anyone think of such a country to use as a test case?
I recently found out that France does not have anti-discrimination laws, but also that they don't collect data on race, so it might not be possible to use them as a comparison.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
2mo ago
Aside from Mama Odie, who lives in the bayou, every black character we see works in the diner with Tiana or lives in her neighborhood.
I see your point about the merchandising implications, though. Thank you.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
5mo ago
A leftist talking point between 2017 and 2019 was that if someone seems to deny someone else their rights, then they forfeit their own rights. Therefore, it is okay to "punch Nazis".
Now, I'm hearing a lot of the opposite, that queers and feminists stand with Palestine because homophobic transmisogynists are human too.
It's hard to know for certain what happened. My hunch is that these are largely the same people, and that they've never been interested in meta level principles. But it's possible that these are totally different people who've replaced the leftist activists of a few years ago. That's certainly a more charitable explanation.
(I'm not posting this in the Israel/Gaza thread because it's not directly about that conflict.)
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
1mo ago
How did France avoid "position discrimination" if we got saddled with it? Do they not have a Supreme Court powerful enough to do the equivalent of the Griggs v. Duke ruling?
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
3mo ago
It's a Decemberween mackerel!
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
1mo ago
Buying 5 TVs to take advantage of a sale, then returning four of them immediately.
Wait, do they get the price they paid refunded to them, or the pre-sale price? I assume it'd be whatever price is on the receipt.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
4mo ago
From a deontological perspective, a culture where punishment for wrongthink is dished out by social media is better than one where wrongthink is outright illegal. That's why I like living in America, where there are no hate speech laws.
But a thought occurred to me: from a consequentialist perspective, it'd be better to let "cancelling" be done by the state, because then people can defend themselves and a court can decide if they're truly guilty of the offense.
I'm ignorant of international affairs, so I have a question for those of you who are better-educated and/or not American: in a culture where there are hate speech laws, like Britain, are Twitter which hunts less common?
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
8mo ago
If it was intended to sell toys, it wouldn't be PG-13. The film is targeted at millennial women who used to play with Barbie, not children who currently do. And it's on track to cross a billion dollars, so it worked.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
8mo ago
Either The Post Millennial is providing a skewed version of events, or a defense attorney just defeated Andy Ngo's civil case against two of his attackers through blatant juror intimidation. I tend to assume the media takes things out of context, especially openly partisan media, but it's hard for me to believe that a lawyer wearing an "I am Antifa" t-shirt every day in court, rather than formal attire, is anything other than a breach of protocol. Maybe the "I will remember all your faces" line was taken out of context, and she was just talking about her photographic memory. Maybe the Post Millennial was exaggerating when they said that the arguments were all ad hominem attacks. Or maybe this really is as bad as it seems.
Regardless, I'm surprised that the Motte isn't talking about the case.
The trilogy is complete.
This is the third time in my life that a professional pundit has made a shocking political transformation, I found out about it after the fact, and I'm left wondering how it happened. You'd think there'd be some drama YouTuber recapping these stories in a well-edited highlights reel, but it's all just spread out over many, many hours of streams.
First, it was shoe0nhead. I stopped paying attention to her completely after her feud with ShortFatOtaku, and then I heard about her getting involved with BreadTube (yuck) through Sargon of Akkad, and now she's... making really based tweets about current events that keep finding their way to me? I asked what happened, and people say she's not a socialist anymore and has a trad right boyfriend. I'd love to know how that last shift happened, because I've never seen someone go that far left and then pull back.
Then, it was Red Scare. I never paid attention to Red Scare, but I knew they were a sister act to Chapo Trap House and that prominent celebrities listened to the show, and I knew about the "Sailor Socialist" incident where the InfoWars reporter rudely accosted Dascha but asked totally reasonable questions, which Dascha responded to with dismissive quips, which meant she won in the eyes of the internet. Now the hosts are tradcaths, one of them got kicked off an HBO drama for being anti-woke, and they're doing right-wing tribal signalling. I don't know when or how that happened.
But now I just found out about the MOST INSANE one of all.
I remember the groyper wars from four years ago. The one good thing Nick Fuentes ever did. But the groypers lost, right? Covid killed all their momentum. This year, AFPAC died because Fuentes lost all his fans. Even the Kanye West bump didn't save him.
But today, on Twitter, I saw Charlie Kirk (rightfully) defending Elon Musks's statements on Da Jooze. In the replies, someone pointed out that over a month ago, he interviewed Steve Sailer on his podcast.
For one thing, I'm shocked that I didn't hear about this immediately when it happened. But also, HOW did it happen? Kirk's organization was blacklisting people who got near Unz or VDare.. heck, people who just admitted to reading them! He's part of Con Inc! Now he's okay with it? What changed? How did this happen? I thought the groypers lost! Was this a downstream effect of Musk taking over Twitter? How the heck???
Looking over at this post, I spent too much of this post talking about show and Red Scare. The reason I'm posting tonight is because I want to know if anyone understands why Kirk is suddenly breaking bread with the people who were his enemies just yesterday.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
6mo ago
The Origins of Woke has not become a best seller. As of this writing, the top non-fiction book on both the Publishers Weekly and NYT best sellers lists is The Democrat Party Hates America by Mark R. Levin. While I haven't read Levin's book, I'm sure it's as disposable as any other political tract by a Fox News host, while The Origins of Woke is legitimately the most important conservative book of the last 20 years.
Argument: It's not selling well because of the Huffington Post article that exposed his old blog posts to the masses. Counterargument: Conservatives are the target market, and they tend not to "cancel" people over things like this.
Argument: It's not selling more copies because the name is cringe. Counterargument: Donald J. Trump Jr's book "Triggered" became a best seller.
Argument: It's not selling more copies because Hanania isn't a celebrity. Counterargument: Andy Ngo doesn't host anything or do many public appearances, but his book was still a best-seller.
I don't care whether Hanania is personally successful, but I really, really want the ideas in this book to gain widespread recognition. Hanania offers provide a plausible-enough plan to defeat not only wokeness, but also all of the ideologies that have gained popularity in the wake of Conservative Inc's failure to stop wokeness, including white nationalism and NRx. Speaking as a former white nationalist (or whatever you wanna call VDare readers), people with moderate temperaments adopt extreme beliefs because the mainstream hasn't offered any believable alternative.
Ben Shapiro says that we should just argue people into adopting our views because it'll suddenly work, even though we've been trying for years and it hasn't worked. Peter Brimelow says we should close the border and have white babies. Curtis Yarvin says that we should put a dictator in charge, or at least whatever FDR was. Caldwell says that we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, even though it's as much a part of our national identity at this point as the Constitution.
Hanania's proposal is essentially a modification of Caldwell's that takes political realities into account. Instead of repealing the Civil Rights Act, we should just re-interpret it in an originalist light and repeal the modifications made in the decades afterwards.
I can't say for certain why this book isn't making bank, but I theorize that it has to do with the fact that no mainstream conservative figure like a Ben Shapiro or a Steven Crowder has reviewed it or interviewed him. They're ignoring him, even though his politics are totally aligned with theirs, because they don't want to platform someone who was once a racist. National Review hasn't even reviewed The Origins of Woke.. and they reviewed Christopher Caldwell's Age of Entitlement!
So, here are three questions I have in no particular order.
- Why do you think the book isn't doing gangbusters?
- Why do you think Hanania's book is being ignored by the big players in conservative media?
- Is there a chance that even if the book remains obscure, its ideas will make their way to the people who matter?
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
1mo ago
Interesting. But do they have doctrines that are equivalent to disparate impact or hostile workplace environment?
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
7mo ago
For the first time in my life, I'm starting to think we need childhood bullying. I am continually astonished by the cruelty of other people, often practiced under the pretense of standing up to bullies. It's like these people don't actually know what it's like to be on the other end. If they did, wouldn't they be more sympathetic?
So, what if we need childhood bullying to prevent adulthood bullying? Perhaps people need to learn at a young age how it feels to be a victim so they don't become the victimizer as an adult?
Of course, maybe being mistreated doesn't cause people to sympathize with others who are mistreated. But I've never seen anyone make this argument, at least prescriptively, so I figured I should, so I can see how people would argue against it.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
6mo ago
Yes, another top level comment about The Origins of Woke from me, in the same thread on the same week. But this is about something else. I had an epiphany while reading the book.
I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust. It's because companies are (de facto) legally required to fire racists, but they're not required to fire Marxists. In fact, firing a Marxist for merely being Marxist would be illegal in California.
California has a state law against firing people for their political beliefs, but it didn't protect James Damore, who was fired in compliance with the law against creating a hostile work environment for protected groups.
It all adds up.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
11mo ago
When I discuss Critical Race Theory with leftists, I often make the point that, while I'd rather public schools not encourage students to speculate on the causes of racial disparities, I'd be amenable to a compromise where systemic racism is taught as one possibility, alongside cultural and biological explanations.
The response to this (when it's not an accusation of racism on my part) is that I'm just like the creationists who wanted their psuedoscience taught alongside evolution. This is kind of true, in that I am asking that ideas I like be taught alongside ones favored by the academic establishment. However, when you take social desirability out of the equation, HBD is more similar to evolution because it literally IS just applied evolution, and systemic racism/CRT/disparate impact/wokeness/social justice/anti-racism/whatever label we're using this week is analogous to creationism in that we have little direct evidence it exists, but we assume it must exist because the current state of affairs would make sense as its outcome, even though it would also make sense as the outcome of other processes.
I doubt that I'm the first person around these parts to say that the Pastafarian explanation for gravity (an invisible, non-corporeal Flying Spaghetti Monster physically pushes us onto the ground) has no less evidence supporting it than the woke explanation for half-Asian, half-white children having a mean IQ between that of Asians and that of whites (stereotype threat impacts them half as much).
I also doubt that I'm the first person around these parts to draw a comparison between creationists who acknowledge microevolution while denying Darwinism to leftists who acknowledge within-group heritability while denying between-group heritability.
However, a thought occurred to me today that frightened me, and my hope is that when I voice it, you will unanimously dismiss it as ridiculous, because if it's in any way true, then I'm going to be devastated.
What if the truth value of Darwinism had little, if anything, to do with its acceptance by the academic establishment, and the falsehood of intelligent design had little, if anything, to do with its rejection by the academic establishment? If truth was that important, we'd expect CRT to be seen as equivalent to creationism, but it's not.
You know the Schmitt meme about how all disputes can be reduced to friend vs. enemy? Well.. maybe that's what happened with the debate over evolution in public schools. Maybe evolution was pushed specifically because the religious right objected to it, and not because it was real. That evolution actually WAS real was incidental at best.
Promote evolution and CRT because they hurt the right. Eliminate intelligent design and HBD because they hurt the left. This is how a Schmittposter would describe what happened, and maybe that literally is what happened.
Please tell me I'm just mindkilled. I'm not being rhetorical here. I would find that reassuring.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
7mo ago
She looks white. I don't think most Americans even know what a Sikh is.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
3mo ago
That makes sense. Thank you for your answer. This opens up another question, though: if not much has actually changed for women, what explains The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness?
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
3mo ago
Great post! Thank you!
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
8mo ago
I'm still thinking about the Barbie movie. It occurred to me that, among the many plausible readings, there's one in which it's a parable about the responsibility that comes with the red pill.
After Ken reaches Kenlightenment, he immediately uses Facts and Logic to convince everyone in Barbieland that patriarchy is superior to all other forms of government. All of the Barbies agree to live under this system, but Ken worries that they may change their minds. And so, after the Kens are put in charge, they schedule a vote to change the constitution so that no woman can ever hold a position of power again.
Ken didn't do anything wrong when he convinced women to choose subservience, but he did do something wrong when he tried to force their permanent subservience. It's not that he didn't care about making the world better for the Barbies, it's just that he cared even more about making the world better for him and the other Kens. And despite his confident exterior, he knew deep down that patriarchy might not actually be the best system, so he needs a failsafe. Ken went from Jared "freedom of association" Taylor to Richard "peaceful ethnic cleansing" Spencer. That's when he became the villain.
To be clear, I am not trying to actually read the intent of the filmmakers. I just find it interesting how everyone can see a reflection of their own values in the movie. Some of my favorite political satire is stuff that doesn't take a clear stance, and when political propaganda is done so clumsily that nobody is sure what stance is being advocated, it accidentally becomes great satire.
Like, I'm not even sure the film does have a political message. I would just as easily buy that it's supposed to be a comedy without an real agenda as I would that it has an agenda it poorly communicates.
There's a "protect trans kids" poster on Gwen Stacy's bedroom wall in Across the Spider-Verse. This is the second time I've seen this exact phrase, after Don Cheadle wore it on his shirt when appearing on Saturday Night Live.
Okay, my curiosity is piqued. What does this phrase mean?
I assume this message is in reference to a specific threat that exclusively, or at least disproportionately, impacts trans children. Specifically, my assumption is that it relates to bathroom bills and/or gender affirming care, but I have a close friend who insists that it refers to hate crimes, and he says that I'm "living in a bubble" if I don't think it refers to hate crimes. But I really haven't heard anything about a hate crime surge against transgender children, real or exaggerated. I heard plenty about the supposed hate crime surge against Asians three years ago, so if there was a similar narrative going on with trans kids, I figure I'd hear about that too.
Which isn't to say that I never hear people complain about hate crimes against trans people! But when I do, the discussion is about transgender people of all ages, not specifically children. The only activist movement I hear about that specifically relates to trans children is their supposed right to medically transition, but my friend says I'm being uncharitable if I assume that that's what is being referred to.
I'd appreciate it if you guys help clear this up for me.
Edit: When I told him about this post, my friend clarified that he thinks the ignorance is that I think it implies exclusively to these issues and not to violence.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
5mo ago
Horseshoe theory is when the far-right and fat-left become indistinguishable because they're both demanding human rights violations in order to achieve pie in the sky goals. This sounds like something totally different.
And by "based", I don't mean anti-Semitic. I'm Jewish and pro-Zionist (with some reservations about how the Palestinians have been treated). I just mean that they're not going "ewwww, icky low status person with low status beliefs, get away" or demanding people be blacklisted.
Conservautism
Doubly Afraid of Change
10mo ago
I'd like you guys to refrain from responding to this message (the one you are reading right now) unless you either are someone who holds the beliefs I am trying to engage with, or you can steelman how someone who holds those beliefs would respond to what I'm saying. Expressions of agreement are useless to me here. Thank you. (I have tried to get this discussion going on Twitter, but as one would expect, it hasn't worked.)
clears throat
So you, hypothetical person, believe that if a trans child has been on puberty blockers for the maximum of two years, then they should be allowed to switch over to HRT, even if they haven't reached the age of consent. So, for example, if a child starts blockers at age 12, then they should be able to switch over at age 14, even though the age of consent is no lower than 16 anywhere in the United States.
Why should the age of consent for HRT, the "real deal" of transitioning, be lower than the age of consent for sex? If you say that HRT is less harmful for children than sex with an adult, you need to be able to substantiate your claim.
I recently watched The Princess and the Frog for the first time in over a decade, and my first time since viewing Song of the South. I do not understand why PATF is considered less socially insensitive than SOTS. So far as I can tell, both are guilty of the same sin: romanticizing the past in a way that glosses over the harsh reality of race relations. Both are set in the south and have a mixed race cast; PATF is set during Jim Crow and SOTS is set during Reconstruction. Both indirectly acknowledge race by conflating it with class, never mentioning race once but casting everyone in the lower caste as black.
The best explanation I can think of is that Reconstruction is considered a more salient part of American history than Jim Crow, but that's weird, considering that there are people alive who lived under Jim Crow but not people who lived in the 1800's.
More options
Context Copy link