@FlyOnTheWall's banner p




0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2023 April 22 18:17:56 UTC


User ID: 2354



0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2023 April 22 18:17:56 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2354

I'll comment on just one specific point that Walt/Yassine make vis-a-vis Black crime.

Y: But when you say something like protecting whites from crimes committed by other races, I don't know. What does that mean? Like, are you talking about white [enclaves] -


Y: - But how would you protect against that when you say protecting whites from crimes committed by other races how does that look different from just protecting against crimes?

W: I would just say a harsher carceral state in general.

Y: A harsher carceral state for black people or just in general?

W: For everybody.


W: In practice, all you'd have to do is crack down on crime more harshly generally, and it would it would mostly be black crime that you're containing. okay but so it doesn't look any different right it doesn't but but the reason you can't do that is because of pro-black like religion basically in america we have this religious political instinct and i write about this in my essay the metapolitics of black white conflict you know my basic theory like we have this like cycle in american history where we alternate between like sort of like worshiping or fetishizing black people and desperately trying to like bring them up to uh like the white standard and then sometimes there's there's a very like vicious sort of uh crackdown on, on, uh, on black people, right?

Yassine asks - what reason is there (other than just simian hatred of the racial outgroup) to advocate for White interests specifically? As he correctly points out - the end state that Walt wants (a race-blind justice system) doesn't obviously require any appeal to White identity.

He's not quite right - as Walt points out, you can't just do race-blindness without addressing the inevitable racial disparity.

But this still doesn't get us to White Identarianism - the (truthful) explanation for Black crime is simply HBD: Black people commit more crimes because of their genetics.

Walt claims that telling the truth would be politically infeasible. This isn't crazy - there's a reason why HBD isn't discussed in the mainstream (and why it's now called "HBD" instead of a more descriptive term like "racialism")

But to be blunt, Walt's proposal of reparations with strings attatched sounds even more insane and unlikely to work. He understands this won't actually make Blacks happy (very soon all the disparities will re-emerge), but he hopes this will catalyse some kind of spiritual awakening amongst Whites, as now instead of abstract differentials in crime rates, the harm caused by Blacks would be concretely manifested as the yearly "Reparation Tax". Aside from the fact that Affirmative Action basically does this already (and hasn't helped reduce tensions), this just sounds too complex to work (There's a lot of moving parts, and each step of reasoning is only sort-of plausible)

So do we conclude Whites should logically just be "race-realist but not racist"? The problem is that even if we could magically snap our fingers to get to Walt's end-goal - this would still be anti-White.

They both talk about being "harsh on crime" as though this just means we turn up a dial that puts more criminals (a disproportionate amount of whom are Black) into prison. But in practice, enacting any such policy basically has to make general society a lower trust (i.e. worse) place to live in. For some specific examples:

  • The fact that "inner city" schools have to include this ugly protection with their vending machines

  • In France, FGM has become a problem To quote the article:

We explain to doctors the importance of examining all children. In that way they can check not just for FGM but for sexual abuse

In other words, by simply having Africans exist in France (and adopting an anti-racist ideology), the native French population must now have their young daughters undergo an uncomfortable, embarassing check-up for FGM, despite the fact that this literally never happens for them (I know this is a non-US context, but I think it illustrates the general point quite well)

Now you could reasonably point out that every example I gave is pretty trivial - I mean it's not that hard to lock your bicycle, I doubt the FGM-check is invasive, and a slightly uglified vending machine still produces the same snacks. But all of these little things add up, to make the environment around you feel generally crappy and prison-like, and maybe more importantly, to make you feel worse about yourself (the vending machine protector, the FGM check-up, the bike lock - they're all there because a generic person, like you, cannot be trusted not to do a smash-and-grab, mutilate your daughter, or steal a bike)

To be clear - everything I said only proves that even race-blind policies (as opposed to segregation, a different justice system for different races, ethnic cleansing, etc) would be anti-White. I haven't said anything on what would be moral (even if you're a White Identarian, the interests of Whites wouldn't be the only thing you judge morality on)

The image is meant to reflect Abrahamic perspectives on India, not the reality. India sucks, that's no surprise. Many other countries suck too. Why pick India as the target for a 2 hour 4chan doc (rant) ? Indians being 'hindu' is fundamental to how the world views it. The same squalor would be treated quite differently if this was a christian/muslim country.

Okay I see what you're saying now. The motivation for this was already discussed in another chain - I think it was most likely done by a White Canadian. I think the internal motivation for this was just because, in the case of Canada, the Indian immigrant population is of poor quality (hence the natives would get angry - in the same way a lot of UK natives have come to dislike Islam/Pakistan)

... Ofc, That was an era when holding colonies was already become politically untenable across the board.

This could be interpreted as further proving that it wasn't a proper "victory". It had become "politically untenable" because the West had personally decided it was unfair (this is how I see it, but of course you could argue that the morality stuff was just an excuse to save face)

In any case I don't think the means by which India gained independence matters. I was mainly responding to your comments about other countries being "conquered" but not India (every example you give of China, etc being conquered seem to be things that also apply equally or worse to India)

eh, I'm not sure I buy this.

Within a given race*, most traits follow a bell-curve. In some cases we have extensively studied the trait, given it a name, a measuring standard, etc (e.g. IQ) - so we can just compare races by measuring the mean and variance (then the (non)-existence of extreme individuals follows by integrating the area under the curve)

The video shows examples of extremely "degenerate" (I don't like how vague that word is, but I honestly don't know how else to describe it) things that don't happen elsewhere (minus maybe Africa)

There is some trait(s) within the people in those videos that makes them act in this way (I think low IQ explains most of it) - they do not represent the average but the fact they exist tells us about the average (The small number of instances is still meaningful, because the normal distribution decays so rapidly at the tails)

*In the case of India it is slightly more complicated, since the castes are effectively separate races themselves with separate bell curves. So the videos don't actually directly tell us about Brahmins/Upper Castes (. The success of Indian immigrants in the West is evidence that there is human capital there. But it does raise the separate question, already talked about in this thread, of why these people are willing to allow all of this)

Take a decade of all the shitty things done by white americans, scale that by 8x.....and you'd be able to make a similarly disgusting movie about the US. I dispute how representative it is.

Well this is the entire point of the video - the argument is you can't make such a movie. The West has even more technology than India, and there's no censorship confounder like with China. Yet are there any instances of American Whites doing anything like what's shown in the video? (I don't need a movie, but I would like to see at least one single video of any of this stuff happening in the US by Whites, not just in nature but also degree)

It definitely isn't representative - but as I said above, it is reflective of something bad.

Agreed. So let's start with reducing malnutrition first. 35.5% of Indian children are malnourished. In the 90s (those who are now adults), it was above 50%. I'd bet that <5% of Indians have a sufficiently high protien intake for optimal brain development.

So from what I can find online, in the most severe cases (which I think reasonably applied to ~1/2 population in the past) malnutrition can lead to a loss of 15 IQ points.

So even in the most extreme case (where since most people will be malnourished to an extent, we count them as being severely malnourished) such a program would add 15 IQ point, raising the country to a little over 90 IQ.

I think this is still way too low (and this is already a generously high estimate) - the average IQ of US Blacks is 85 and they function poorly even with a 1st world country pre-built for them.

So I think some kind of eugenics program is still necessary (also unlike curing malnutrition, this would have a positive long term effect beyond the individual)

In the coming decades, the bottom 80% is going to be completely irrelevant to the GDP of a country. There will be a huge internal services sector, and a small skilled sector which generates all the actual productivity. India needs a high enough average IQ to run an effective service sector and enough geniuses to run the 'high productivity' sector.

This sounds reasonable (in broad strokes, no idea if the 80% figure is too high/low)

But I don't see why this makes average IQ obsolete. Even for accountants, programmers, etc having a higher IQ will make them do their grunt work more efficiently (you say "high enough", but I disagree there is such a thing, things can always become even more efficient - and remember that China has a racially homogenous population with average IQ 104, so unless something is done our (optimistically) 90 IQ internal service sector is going to lag behind)

The 2 are not tightly coupled. A country with 5x the people doesn't need 5x the number of geniuses. You need about 100k competent new-grads to run everything in the country. Everyone else can be manned by an average base population. You just need high compliance.

My previous point about average IQ still applies, but even more so. Again, no country "needs" any geniuses at all, but if you want to come to the top, you need to have more geniuses than everyone else: more innovations will be made by 500 geniuses than 100.

And when you remember the geniuses are arising as the top whatever quantile of a normal distribution (or in India's case, a few different normals), this means that if you're able to produce 500 instead of 100, the 500 will all be of higher average quality than the 100 (the probability density only gets more and more concentrated at the threshold as you move the threshold further to the right)

This is the only image you need to understand the 2 hr documentary and the 2000 word blog.

I disagree. I read the blog but didn't watch the movie (though if I understand correctly it is just a montage of the most degenerate extremes of India)

Neither of them are really about litigating pros/cons of British/Mughal rule - they focus solely on the present state of the country, and make the claim that it's very bad.

...The west permanently conquered every civilization except India.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you actually mean this literally (in another comment you say "These [Japanese and Muslim] people have been squarely defeated." - if so I don't really see your logic:

Based on my (limited) understanding of Indian history, until the mid 1900s essentially the entirety of what would become "India" was under the control of the British. Independence was something the British voluntarily gave to India because a growing anti-colonial movement had made the Raj too inconvenient (notably - there wasn't a part where the proud Hindu forces teamed up to cast of the chains of their old masters and launch a counterattack on the UK)

Furthermore the original government, whilst Indian in blood, was clearly Western in thought and education (Nehru literally went to Cambridge!) and English continues to be the co-national language of India.

In the eyes of the west, there are only 3 major civilizations - Abrahamic, Chinese and Indian. African and Native American cultures get a lot of praise, but only because they are considered to be ideologically harmless. The west sees Chinese and Indian civilizations as threats.

This doesn't really line up with what I hear from my Western friends, living in the West. I think for the most part, no one in the West (excluding Canada) thinks about India. I have never gotten the impression that Westerners are threatened by India.

China is wierd. First, China nuked its own civilization and replaced it wholesale with communism (an explicitly western construct). Second, China was isolated (hard to access information on internal suffering) and became successful (harder to critisize). Lastly, China became an enemy. There was no reason to use dirty methods for critisizing China, because you could now be aggressive over the table. "Every Chinese person is a spy. Ban their brands. Sanction them to death, etc. etc.". It helps that China's population is in steep decline, where they might self-own themselves into extinction anyway.

On the isolation - yes this would have made collections such as this harder to obtain. But the problem is that a lot of these things (to take one specific horrific example: eating the cow dung) literally never happen elsewhere (maybe in SSA? But is that really an acceptable standard?), it's not that there just lots more examples in India vs China (or even a country with a similar GDP), there are literally none. Of course these are all the most extreme of extremes - a normal Indian person isn't this way - but if the worst of the racial stock behaves this way, it suggests the average is still very bad.

As for the bit about there being overt Chinese racism in the West, this is completely insane. Whilst it's true that the West has a hair-trigger for anti-Black sentiments, it would still be completely unacceptable to be genuinely racist to any non-White group (you may get away with a well-intentioned joke about e.g. Indian accents, EAs all looking the same, etc - but not an actual criticism of the race)

India on the other hand remains an intact competiting (well, not so successfully) civilization that isn't an enemy. It has preserved its civilizational values. And if you're American, the Indian diaspora appears to be ascendant. Indians here are rich and peaceful citizens. They are now becoming powerful. And worst of all, for the first time, they are getting portrayed as cool (Monkeyman, RRR, list goes on).

What "civilizational values" has India preserved that say China or Japan has lost? (To go back to a previous point - English is one of the two national languages and the entire government was modelled after the Westminster system)

So the rich and peaceful part is accurate (Indians appear to out-earn everyone-excluding-Jews by quite a margin, I cannot find any data on crime rates that doesn't just cover "Asians", but since they're high-earners I think this pattern holds for Indians in particular too)

As for becoming powerful, I have heard this said online sometimes, and it certainly seems possible in the future (the incomes/crime-rates suggest a good genetic stock) - currently they're just proportionally represented Again this is fairly impressive, but they're hardly at the level of Jews for instance.

Your point about movies feels unconvincing. I've never heard of Monkeyman, and I only heard of RRR because it was referenced on The Motte some time ago. As someone who probably watches too many US TV shows, without any numbers at hand, I would not say that there is any significant representation of Indians.

India is the best country to be portrayed as the worst in the world. India is civilizationally distant (so ciriticisms aren't self-owns). India is ascendent (so it is a threat). Indians near you are rich (so it is okay to make fun of them). It has no consequences (unlike China or Muslims, where such a documentary would have implications) and there is an ounce of truth to it (India is still very poor).

This feels completely off to me.

India has indeed been improving rapidly, but it still lies miles behind the West (On visiting India to see family basically everything was significantly worse than in the UK) - I really do not think that the West sees it as a threat (indeed I personally do not believe it is a threat, except in the big-picture sense that every non-White race is a threat because over centuries they could evolve and overtake Whites)

As I said previously, you can "make fun" of Indians (and Jews, Chinese, Hispanics, etc) in a way you cannot do so for Blacks. But anything even approaching this video/blog post in tone, content or intention would be completely out of the question for any non-White race in the West - it goes beyond being politically incorrect and into travel ban/jail time territory.

I don't understand what you mean by "consequences". This wasn't a piece of government approved propaganda, it was done by a twitter anon. What exactly do you think would happen if "Thames" had made a similarly hateful work on Chinese/Muslim people?

As for the "ounce of truth" - what precisely is the lie? Do you dispute that the events that occurred in the film actually happened? Or are you saying the conclusions regarding racial inferiority aren't legitimate? (If so - I would like to ask if you also think the cornucopia of Black crime videos on right-wing Twitter don't reflect anything about Blacks)

My dream in life is to under-go a public cancellation. It means you are threating enough and your competition has ran out of ideas. They're pulling out every dirty weapon to bring you down, and if you make it out this. You're part of the ruling class for good. An inevitable 'rite of passage'. India seems to be facing (very very) early signs of something like this. If the Indian economy keeps growing, I predict this kind of hatred is about to get a LOT LOT worse before it gets better.

What "dirty weapon" has been used here though? Whilst Kulak and Thames obviously hate the Indian race, the images weren't doctored, and the events that transpired occurred without any foreign influence. You compare this to a (presumably unjust) cancellation, but this is not footage of rural Indians jumping over toll booths or wearing torn clothing. Do you honestly think that any of that stuff is acceptable, even for the most primitive elements of a race?

Also I disagree generally with your logic that hatred is only ever motivated by jealousy. Do you also think that DR Twitter is "jealous" of the state of the American Black when they post video #34839 of Black teenagers destroying a convenience store / harassing random White people?

This isn't to say I think this wasn't in poor taste. But if we're doing metaphors, this makes me feel upset in the way you would be if a stranger decided to make fun of your profoundly mentally retarded younger brother as he drives the family to bankruptcy and eats crayons: there actually is a serious problem, which necessitates drastic measures - but the stranger humiliating you about this is unhelpful (and quite aggravating!)

To every Indian, I have the same advice. Everything is a dick measuring contest. Grow a bigger (economic) penis. Your economic penis is the only thing that matters.

I strongly disagree here. I've only done some very cursory reading on HBD stuff, but I think genetics (especially IQ) is much more important (From what I found just now, IQ correlates with GDP at r=0.82, which is insane by social science standards)

I believe that (especially in the long-run), the most important thing to get done if you wish to be a serious Hindu nationalist is to improve the racial stock of the nation. In the past such measures have been attempted but never on a particularly large (by the standards of India) scale. Also alongside coercive sterilisation, there would have to be some kind of government program to encourage high-IQ couples to have a lot more children (as we can see, already several states are below replacement, and since low-IQ people tend to have more children, the situation is even worse than the diagram suggests)

Until then....sucks to be us.

If by "us" you just mean Indians in India who care about the future of their race, then yes. I think being an Indian in the UK (and more so in the US) is quite nice (assuming you're not too much of a racial identarian, but then of course it doesn't matter much where you are)

What's your feelings about this quote... Does that just read as empty rhetorical flourishes to you? Does it seem too old and out-of-context to be relevant?

Well sort of, yes (but I freely admitted that already)

They read as "empty" to me because - like all rhetoric involving "rights" - it fails to consider the part where, in the process of separate individuals living in a shared society seeking out their God-given right to Freedom, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, etc, these "rights" come into conflict with one another.

The reason this quote (and countless others isomorphic to it) sounds so appealing is because it basically just says that the writer endorses maximising goodness in the world. To attack the weakest part - consider the phrase "pursuit of happiness", this describes literally everyone who wants something bad enough (Indeed, most trans people feel very happy when society uses their pronouns)

But to address the bold part - the fact the people have the "right" to abolish a tyrannical government is meaningless - rights, obligations, etc only make sense on the personal scale. Once we consider entire nations, in the absence of a higher power, stuff just happens, and we all have to go along with it.

In terms of emotion, it does resonate with me a bit (despite what I said above, obviously I think it's a good thing if we live in a world where people are free, and can pursue their bliss) - it presents only one side of the issue, ignoring the trade-offs (as all good propaganda does).

But I can do that with basically any issue. Since this started with progressivism, here's a pretty popular quote for leftists: "We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” - James Baldwin

I mean this sounds pretty reasonable. Baldwin is happy to have an open debate, just so long as you don't dehumanise him. And I'm sure there's no way two reasonable people will disagree as to what constitutes "dehumanisation"

Some compulsion is always necessary, but there comes a point where it's too much, against too many, and at that point society ruptures... People who don't see the need to limit compulsion are like a person lighting cigarettes in the middle of a gunpowder factory: a danger to themselves and others.

Yes I agree there's a limit to how much you can mistreat people before something gives.

I even think that the trans issue could end up being an important part of a rupture. However that would be through the part where a parent has their child taken away from them for refusing to affirm their new gender and consent on the child's behalf to HRT/puberty blockers (This is an actual problem I have with the trans movement - aggrieved would be an understatement if that happened to me in the future)

But forcing us to use trans people's pronouns (and hence lie)? No, not really. Maybe people might complain about it on internet forums and amongst close friends (I have friend who finds it annoying like you do), but I don't think they'll do anything about it.

I don't believe this is a necessary compulsion, but I think in degree, it is on a similar level to the other necessary compulsions: like not walking outside naked, not being allowed to comment on someone's disfigurement, not being allowed to voice politically incorrect opinions in general, etc.

The bailey is that it's one side of a strategic asymmetric rule similar to Dreher's law of merited impossibility

That technique is also used.

But here I'm talking about the completely logically coherent argument that the struggles faced by the in-group simply are more serious (for object-level reasons particular to a specific issue) than the outgroup:

If we do X:

  • Neutral for the outgroup
  • Completely awful for the ingroup.

If we do Y:

  • Neutral for the outgroup
  • Good for the ingroup.

Not a big deal if you comply, but a massive deal if you push back.

But in all cases, this isn't some kind of Bailey. The progressives openly admit to holding this view. If you're convinced that the outcomes of X/Y are as above (perhaps it's marginally worse for outgroup if we do Y), then it's completely reasonable, even if you belong to the outgroup, to do Y.

There is no doublethink, merited impossibility, etc going on here. It's a disagreement on the object-level.

Maybe "it's not a big deal except that it is"?

Isn't this just a rephrasing of Merited Impossibility?

That's a valid rebuttal.

But I think most progressives genuinely struggle to believe people feel so strongly about free speech/compelled speech. I think this also contributes to them distrusting liberals who oppose the trans agenda - to them it sounds like you're just making up excuses to hurt people's feelings.

As I've drifted away from progressivism, I have come to believe that some people really do feel a deep level of discomfort and "ickiness" from being forced to say something they don't believe is true to avoid punishment - from observing non-woke people in real life and reading forums like this.

But personally I really don't think I can relate. I've read the stirring prose explaining how it's every man's natural right to be able to speak his own truth, etc. But I just don't feel it.

When I call a trans person their preferred pronoun, I'm not an emasculated liar, at least not any more than everyone else who is alive today and not part of some remote uncontacted tribe: whether you like it or not, you are totally controlled by society.

If the government says tomorrow that we have to eat bugs and live in a pod, there's actually nothing you or I could do about it (either we comply, or there's an escalating series of negative incentives that culminate in death) - the only reason we don't have to do that is because society doesn't want us to do that right now.

All of our freedoms are privileges that the establishment grants us - whilst morally you could argue X is a right, in practice, the government can take X away if they want to, and believe it won't lead to a revolt.

My question to you, and to anyone else that sees the compelled speech thing as a genuine issue - why do you feel this way? Why is this such a big issue for you? Can't you just tell people, who've made it abundantly clear they aren't interested in hearing your actual opinion, what they want to hear?

I see. So the demand is that we be closeted about our beliefs -- that we're free to have them, but never to express them in public?

Precisely. I'm personally against this now, because I think the current transgender movement is, at best, not improving the state of society, and I don't want any of my future children to be transgender.

However I don't really have a problem with this on the meta-level: when I used to agree with the trans movement, I happily and sincerely endorsed this unwritten rule, as I (and it would seem, most progressives) don't really care about free speech.

This is a form of conquest of the mind

I think you're half right. I think that progressives believe this is the case (but obviously they can't say this the way you have, it sounds awfully 1984) - and see this as a good thing, because this "conquest" will bring about a more equitable and tolerant society.

But I'm not sure this will work out - I think that the progressive movement is going to keep pushing the boundary, until more and more people are directly affected (e.g. their child decides to become trans), and then they will end up losing a lot of objectives they considered set it stone (gay marriage, civil rights legislation, etc)

There is a limit to the amount of ruin that the public can be made to ignore by social pressure and catchy slogans.

Imagine if atheism were treated the same way. You're free to not believe, but you must never take the Lord's name in vain in public, or blaspheme in any other way, because it mortally offends the Christians. We would not consider this standard to be acceptable.

What does "acceptable" mean? I would weakly prefer the current arrangement where I get to say I'm an atheist and take the Lord's name in vain to the hypothetical. But on a list of things that I want to change about the world, it would be pretty low down.

If someone asked me, in confidence, how I felt about the new theocracy - I'd say it's not ideal, but it's acceptable.

Do you know what I consider polite? Not laying claim to the speech of everyone around me to shore up my own identity. Not making my problems into everyone's responsibility -- THAT'S politeness.

I disagree. Being "polite" just means conducting yourself in a manner to avoid causing conflict or offence, which in particular means obeying the societal consensus on issue X.

Further - politeness is a descriptor of personal interactions. When you meet a trans person, and you are implicitly compelled to refer to them by their preferred pronouns, they aren't doing any of the things you said - all of this was done by hundreds of activists/professors/politicians/etc over the course of about a decade preceding the interaction.

If you or someone else manages to organise some kind of grass roots activism campaign that ends up garnering enough support to revert back to the old social norms of calling trans people by their sex (unless you just want to be really "nice") - then that will become the new polite, and the trans person who "politely" insists on being called "ma'am" will become impolite.

...and to control the language use of everyone around them.

As I said elsewhere, I was just describing a typical usage of the "not a big deal" argument (my bad for making it sound like I endorse it)

But yes, obviously the trans movement (like every other movement) asks for far more than just not literally being killed.

I'm describing (the entire comment is attempting to more accurately explain/steel man the thinking that goes behind the "not a big deal" argument)

But I have heard this idea expressed by an actual friend in real life (in the form of the phrase "trans genocide") - and similarly find it a bit silly. So I'll try and steel man it:

You already did the first part of the steel man, as you changed "deny the existence" to "deny the right to existence", which is what is actually meant.

Under the framework of trans ideology, we all have a gender identity. This doesn't manifest in any physical manner (you may be a woman but have a penis and XY chromosomes) - but it is real in the sense that, if you try and ignore/suppress it, you will experience "gender dysphoria" (i.e. pain, like if I try and ignore my left arm and it smashes into a door frame)

But beyond this, your gender identity forms a key component of who you are as a human being, to express and have it affirmed is a necessary condition to be your "true self". When a trans person gets to live as their real gender (opposite to their sex), they experience "gender euphoria".

Before that moment, they were merely living a pathetic shadow of a life, forced to play act as something they were not - now they are their authentic self, it borders on the spiritual. If that sounds crazy to you, that's only because you never had the misfortune of having a sex-gender mismatch - it's hard to appreciate water when you've never been thirsty.

So when you refuse to affirm their gender you deny them of having a truly fulfilling existence - they can never actually be themself*

*Whilst the first paragraph is completely standard progressive theory, I am putting words into their mouths a bit with the later parts (I don't think I've ever read anyone say what I said there, but I do get the sense that a lot of people believe this on some level, based on personal interactions, hearing activists, and terms like "gender euphoria")

I disagree. Who/whom is a lens of pure conflict theory + post modernism (there is no objective truth, if the enemy says X, all that means is that they want me to think X is true - it has no meaning divorced from who said it)

The "not a big deal" argument is mistake theory. You talk about "a big deal for me", as though all grievances are subjective, and so all grievances are equally legitimate as I can make a problem "legitimate" by feeling really strongly about it.

In the mistake theory framework, we can objectively measure how bad any particular grievance is (by using a utility function that everyone can agree upon), and then you can argue (irregardless of which "side" you're on) that grievance A, in comparison to B, is not a big deal (not "for me/you/them", but just not a big deal, unqualified)

In each specific case, the leftist argument is that the negative utility represented by the suffering of the marginalised group is so huge, that any minor discomfort experienced by the "privileged" group is trivial in comparison.

And I think the modal leftist sincerely thinks this, and isn't trying to trick you. They believe, even in your shoes, they would espouse the same policies (The anger comes because they think that you simply don't care about trans people's well-being. That as a "transphobe", you know they're suffering but you just don't care)

I think you've misunderstood the "this isn't a big deal" argument.

The claim is that it isn't a big deal for you (the person opposed to whatever relevant agenda being pushed) to go along with it, but that the issue is important for the purported victim group.

For example - the pronoun case.

The progressive believes that if you don't respect trans people's pronouns, it will be traumatic to them, as you reject a fundamental part of their identity, and hence invalidate them as an individual - it's a form of violence (this manifests through, amongst other things, trans people actually killing themselves).

On the other hand if you just called her "she", despite not actually believing in the underlying philosophical framework of gender identity you um... oh wait, it doesn't cost you anything actually! (We all say things we don't believe in from time to time, that's called politeness)

It's basically the same idea as "it's impossible to be neutral in the face of oppression". One side is merely asking to be able to exist (see slogans like "trans genocide", "BLM", etc) whilst the other is not in any real danger: they're just edgy teens, ignorant bigots, and pearl-clutching church ladies.

In swim meets with 2 trans and 48 cis competitors, we would expect the trans athletes to place in the top 5 20% of the time...

I believe the probability is actually ~0.8% (48C3 / 50C5)

I assume you accidentally multiplied by 100 to get a percentage, saw "0.81..." and thought that it was a probability, and then came to 20%?

EDIT: Sorry, I realise I misinterpreted what you said (I thought you meant both of them placing in the top 5) - You're right, please ignore this comment.


Adult Racism is negatively correlated with childhood IQ, and with verbal test ability.

Thanks for the evidence. As @The_Nybbler has pointed out, you could argue this away by theorising that the smarter racists merely have the common sense not to express overtly racist views in public contexts.

But I think this leads to the question of what it really means to "believe" something - if a man goes through his whole life saying that he believes in God, goes to church each week and baptises all his children, I think he probably ends up "believing" in God in some sense to smooth over the cognitive dissonance.

Now one can quibble with all that. Maybe all those things are just measuring college education, and liberal indoctrination on racial issues are just dogma. Intelligence probably correlated with believing in transubstantiation in Catholic Europe and in disbelief in transubstantiation in Protestant Europe, education tells you that societal truths are real. Or one can argue that people lie on surveys.

Well yes - that's my take on the matter. But that's just an explanation of why WNs are less successful on average (that isn't "you'd have to be an idiot to think something so stupid") - I think a college education is a very good correlator for intelligence.

The difference being that Blacks were a small minority, and sought notional equality. There was no universe where they had an interest in excluding anyone from negritude, and no one so excluded would suffer should they achieve their aims.

Yes - that is a good point. However I was trying to demonstrate that your general principle of any kind of movement to advance the interests of group X requires us to have a precise, legalistic definition of what it means to be X (Black Activists and White nationalists are similar in the lack of one)

If I join up with the wignat project today, I'm hoping things play out that my wife is considered white by the faction that wins. I'm just trusting in that, as the protection of my family. That's a bad gamble. Because once we live in Wignat land, my half breed kids won't have other minorites to support them because those groups have been thrown out.

Firstly - White Nationalism is obviously marketed primarily towards Whites who marry other Whites. It's not an indictment of the movement that you would be opposed to it, anymore than the fact most non-White people would be opposed as well - it's not meant for you!

But also to address your point - as you said it is a gamble, but you seem to ignore the possibility of it turning out well for your offspring - if they are included as "White", then they end up living in a state with a much lower crime rate, less money spent on welfare, etc (This isn't to say it couldn't still wind up as negative expected utility, just that it's not uniformly negative over all possible outcomes)

The attempt to reframe wignat ideology as purely an anti Black (and maybe Arab?) Coalition assumes that it is all people care about. That makes little sense. Cultural closeness is going to mean more than iq to most people.

I agree that most people don't judge others on IQ - but we're not talking about normal people. We're talking about a group that exists on the fringe of the fringes.

However I don't think cultural closeness will be the deciding factor either. I think what will actually inflame passions is violent Black crime.

If you're happy with the current state of affairs (as you and I both are), then any kind of argument about how the IQ/culture/etc of group X doesn't really inspire you to action, it's all so abstract, the harm is all in expected value. And anyway, talking about this sort of stuff could land you in trouble, and even just thinking about it could alienate you from your friends/family ("what are you thinking about?" "...um, nothing") - why not focus on another engaging line of inquiry with less self-destructive potential?

On the other hand, victims of violent crime experience extreme, angry and fearful emotions. And when someone sees a video of the crime (as far right accounts love sharing on Twitter) they instinctually feel some of that fear and anger - and I think that if more and more people start getting exposed to this sort of content, this may very well make them seriously question notions of racial equality (and then maybe even become WNs)

The vast majority are failures in one way or another, socially or financially or romantically or professionally, who find in grand racial narratives a reason why their lives are so hard when other people's lives seem so easy.

I've heard this said a lot, and reinforced in pop culture. But do you have any evidence this is actually the case?

This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking - obviously almost every white nationalist (whose job isn't to advance the WN agenda) is only going to express their views anonymously, so I don't see how to know whether they're writing from their mother's basement, or to get their thoughts out after a productive day's work at a high-paying white collar job before having dinner with their wife and 2 kids.

Blame it on the Jews and the niggers and suddenly everything seems so much simpler, there's no blame left for the white nationalist himself.

From what I've read on unz and vdare, there is a bit of hypo-agency in the comments section, and moreover the tone is often just nasty and childish.

But as for (most of) the actual columnists, like Gregory Hood, Jared Taylor, etc - I think this criticism is unfair. I think they honestly believe in good-faith that Jews (actually some of them seem to be in favour of Jews) and Blacks (and various other non-White races), on average, make the life of white people worse in some tangible fashion (the latter due to lower IQs, higher crime rates, etc and the former for encouraging anti-White sentiments)

They haven't just tried Vermont, "the leaves change colors but the people never do," because they'd still be losers there.

Even non-WN Whites engage in White Flight, so I assume actual WNs do so as well. And I assume that a WN would want to take active measures to maintain/increase the white share of the population of Vermont.

There is no realistic universe in which white nationalism succeeds.

If by success you mean White people somehow break off all ties with all of their non-White friends/family and get rid of the non-White population (by mass deportation, genocide, paid emigration or otherwise) and create a 21st century Nazi Germany, then yes - there is no chance of that happening.

But success is a spectrum - it is entirely plausible and realistic to try and stop all illegal immigration, severely limit legal immigration, and make anti-White racism become less acceptable than it is currently. These would all bring the current reality closer to the desired reality of the WN.

First, after all, white people would need a cohesive definition of whiteness.

Yes, you can reasonably disagree over whether various edge cases like Jews, mixed race people with > 75% white ancestry, Eastern Europeans, etc should be included in "White" - but there's clearly a spectrum, and most people who potentially fall under "Whiteness" would just be unambiguously White in any reasonable definition.

By the same logic, all attempts to advance Black ethnic interests in the US (which have been met with resounding success) should have failed miserably - after all what does it even mean to be Black? Everyone seems to agree that Mulattos should count as Black, but what about people with just a single black grandparent like Megan Markle (she looks pretty White to me)?

my learned friend in argument Hoff seems to include the damn Japanese.

If I understand @Hoffmeister25's view of race relations correctly - he believes that the only important distinction is between those with non-trace amounts (>20%?) of Sub-Saharan African/Aboriginal ancestry and those without, and he accordingly defines "White" to be the latter category (which leads to the inclusion of Japanese people)

I think this does sound a bit silly at first - but I think it makes more sense than defining Whiteness as belonging to some subset of European races. Any serious argument for White Nationalism that isn't just petty aestheticism* is based on the fact that Whiteness is a correlator for various traits that are desirable in an advanced civilisation (and also believing these traits are largely genetic, and so are immune to any kind of social/cultural intervention), and so whether or not a race is "White" should be decided based upon the character of that race and their contributions to science and human culture, as opposed to something so trivial as the colour of their skin.

*Well there's also the argument that Whites should preserve the White race simply because it is natural and human to care about those you're genetically related to (and similarly so should all other races) - but I think this is just a bit silly. Yes - your race is just a weaker version of your an extended family, but unlike the HBD argument, this one has much less of a tangible benefit (It can feel a bit alienating being the only person of race X amongst your friends/institution, especially in childhood - but I'd take 100x that emotional pain over the physical pain of being shot or stabbed)


Where's the censorship of gay rights activism? I do not understand what point you're making here.

I meant that anti-gay-rights activism has been censored in recent decades.

And I believe that this was a major factor in turning homosexuality from being seen as an unusual kink that should be tolerated based on "live and let live" ideals, to a legitimate, wholesome lifestyle which is deserving of widespread support and state-backing.

The homosexual advocates didn't come up with some devilishly clever new argument. Through the use of slogans ("love is love", "love is a human right", etc) and shaming, in the space of about a decade - we went from center-right politicians voting against homosexual marriage, to any opposition towards homosexuality pushed outside the Overton window (indeed - even a conservative can only protest the excesses of the movement like Drag Queen Story Hours, they have to make it clear that there's nothing inherently wrong with the lifestyle)

First of all, I'd just like to point out that if the result of your strategy to defeat antisemitism is the actual literal holocaust, your strategy most likely has some big problems!

I'm claiming that the holocaust wasn't the result of censorship. Instead it was due to pre-existing anti-semetic attitudes and that Germany was going through a tough time (Treaty of Versailles, the Depression, etc)

There are lots of good examples where censorship has lead to otherwise unpopular agendas gaining power (just look at contemporary issues like BLM, trans rights, gay rights, etc) - which is why I claim it is an effective tool (there was just too much societal ruin prior to the holocaust)

are you saying that the jews were actually so terrible that not even the power of censorship was enough to prevent anti-semitism?

Due to a higher IQ than Whites, Jews naturally tend towards being overrepresented in politics, and being wealthier than average, with the Weimar republic being a special case. Further, they are more liberal than Whites, which likely increased the extent of their impact on various forms of "degeneracy" brought about by the Weimar republic.

So if you have a problem with the Weimar republic, and are against sexual liberalism, then you would be drawn to anti-semitism (unless any criticism of Jews were made socially unacceptable and associated with schizophrenic losers)

However I believe that anti-semitism (whether based on genuine problems or not) played a very small role in the rise of Hitler. The biggest cause was obviously just the bad economic situation of Germany, which lead people to feel resentful and desperate, and seek out an extreme solution, blowing their grievances way out of proportion.

For the most part, certainly in contemporary Western society which is the context for most discussions about censorship, there isn't any such desperation. People might have problems with policy X, but if you just make it inconvenient to voice opposition to it, they'll eventually give you your way.

nobody in the entire history of the world has a good answer to this question [preventing anti-semitism]

It's been pretty well accomplished in modern Western society. The only people/organisations which I can think of that are anti-semitic would be completely irrelevant fringe figures from White/Black Supremacist movements (indeed, even in the case of actual White supremacists, there seems to be disagreement on this issue - with Jared Taylor considering them as Whites)

And this has been accomplished by making criticism of Jews completely forbidden. Indeed, whilst they are far from alone in the long list of groups which you're not supposed to criticise, we go even further in the case of Jews - you can't even mention the fact that you're not allowed to criticise them (as that would be affirming the anti-semitic trope that Jews control popular culture)

If an idea is at the point where it needs censoring then this process has already started

Yes, the process has started - that doesn't mean it can't be stopped.

There is a massive gulf between some greentexts and forum posts by aryanpepe1488 on Storm Front, and an idea entering the public conscious to be discussed in polite conversation amongst normies.

I was basing my claim off the following report - https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/4_an/4_Anti-Semitism_September-October_1940.pdf

Thanks for the evidence.

I feel pretty confident in saying that the Nazi party wasn't actually wiped out or defeated by being censored in Weimar Germany, and while I've heard of holocaust deniers I've never encountered any Nazi Germany deniers.

Well yes, it didn't work in this particular case. But it does work in other cases (for a recent example, consider how Western public attitudes/treatment of homosexuals has shifted in the last 20 years)

Just because a technique has a < 100% success rate doesn't mean it's never effective. In this case, the reality of the situation was so bad that it overcame the propaganda and censorship.

For something like the Biden laptop story, where all that matters is suppressing coverage just before an election, censorship can work - but that's far more limited than what you're claiming, and even then the negative consequences are already starting to show up.

How is this not a perfect example of my point? Hunter did what he did, and the Democrats couldn't fix it. So instead they suppressed it, and managed to win an election.

There was fallout later on, but that was just because there was an actual problem that had occurred. If they had just allowed the story to be disseminated freely, they would have been in even more trouble.

It is my contention that propaganda and suppression of speech like this will always fail and has only a short-term efficacy.

"All forms of medicine are an exercise in futility - the human body inevitably tends towards decay and death, any kind of pill/surgery is just a short-term delay tactic"

...completely fails to address the root causes of whatever noxious belief you're trying to censor is ...

Yes, ideally you just address the actual problem. But what happens when one of the following is true:

  • The problem is beyond your ability to address (What exactly would you propose the Weimar republic have done differently? German currency was backed by US dollars, so when the US was ruined by the Depression, so were they. That's not some policy that the German government could just reverse)

  • The establishment's values and priorities misalign with the that of the majority. My understanding is that the people running the Weimar republic valued progressive ideals such as loosening sexual mores, women's rights, etc - and like the progressives of today, saw these things as intrinsically good - they were the end which justified the means. And the Nazi party saw these things as degenerate and unnatural.

So in either case, whether it because you can't solve the problem, or you don't even believe the "problem" is a problem - you do the next best thing, which is to discourage anyone causing any ruckus by thinking about the problem.

not to mention it lends credibility to the censored

But you have to hear what the censored person is trying to say to pass any kind of judgement on their ideas in the first place.

Censorship is merely a tool that can be used to further a goal. If you only want to ban commies, and not go any further, then just do exactly that and no more.

It's not some kind of addictive substance or dark magic that will warp your mind into something unrecognisable. It's a simple, non-violent press of a button - the victims will be frustrated and angry, but unharmed physically.

You do not understand me correctly. It is not the technique of suppression that I object to, but the suppression itself.

I expressed myself clumsily. That is exactly what I thought you meant. I was pointing out that suppression, in an of itself, isn't an inherently bad thing (I don't want dissidents murdered, but only because I don't want anyone killed or otherwise physically harmed unless there is no other option)

if we are discussing "what it the best method of silencing those with whom we disagree," I think perhaps we have taken our eye off the ball.

Obviously, since I don't see a regime silencing it's detractors as wrong, that question is extremely relevant to me (And my answer - as thoroughly as you can, so long as it's done non-violently and only to people who are being intentionally hostile to your interests)

I will defer to Justice Holmes on this one:

I've never seen this quote before, but it nicely captures a lot of my thoughts on this issue.

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises...

What an eloquent and persuasive steel man of my position.

...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."

I wrongly inferred from your OP that you were making the "what if the tables were turned" argument.

The market place of ideas thing makes sense - even if you truly believe something, and have total authority, you could just be wrong about the thing, and so being able to critically examine your beliefs is clearly to your benefit.

However social media/the public square/etc aren't platforms for dispassionate rational debate. They are primarily a platform to spread propaganda and push an agenda based upon a belief system you've already decided upon.

I like to use The Motte precisely because of what Holmes is saying - so that my perception is as close to objective reality as possible. I use twitter to enjoy memes/rants that affirm my pre-existing world-view.

The current system of hate speech laws/cancel culture works gives the people holding the lever the best of both worlds. They can impose their will, which they believe will make the world a better place, and also can go to obscure corners of the internet to test out their thinking in private.

Just look at history (looking at you blasphemy laws), the pattern is the same each time.

I think you misunderstand me. I see blasphemy laws as the same in character to hate speech laws, and I'm saying both of them are a good thing.

I assume the terrible "pattern" you refer to is stuff like this. Obviously in contemporary Western society, even the most extreme anti-Semite isn't burned at the stake, or even executed.

But the principle - that you can be legally prosecuted by the state for being a dissident - remains the same (It's just that we don't even perform such gruesome acts on actual violent criminals), and I argue that unless you find the management of our current society intolerable (in which case you wouldn't be happy even with the freedom to proselytise your beliefs) this is a good thing.

I have no sympathy for the victims of such government persecutions given that, despite fully understanding the rules, they deliberately chose to disobey them for the purposes of a principled stand. I can't really empathise with such a person because I would never be in such a situation - if I were bound to the post, as an angry Protestant gave me one last chance to renounce my Catholicism, I would just say "I renounce my Catholicism" and walk away a free man, having suffered only a wound to my ego.

but any rules need to be transparent and very carefully constructed.

I agree with the need for transparency. But you seem to imply that lack of transparency is an issue with the current rules, which I disagree with.

The current rules change with time (About 20 years ago, the statement "a man cannot become a woman" was considered so obvious that no one would even say it, but now this would be considered transphobic) - however it's pretty easy to get a sense of what beliefs are socially appropriate to express.

In my experience, when I have made statements that have fallen outside of the Overton window amongst acquaintances it was made pretty clear to me (an awkward silence, someone explaining that I'm being "narrow-minded" or "ignorant", etc) and so I know to drop the issue and ensure to never bring the idea up again in polite company.

And historically, every famous story about someone being persecuted for their beliefs seems to include multiple opportunities to recant the offending belief, which they explicitly reject.

As for "carefully constructed", I disagree. I assume you mean the rules should be as meta as possible, and try and reflect general moral principles instead of just taking a stance on some specific contemporary controversy (i.e. "It is unfair to blame a group for the actions of an individual" is better than "you can't say Black people are violent because of their crime rate")

It can be tricky to figure out what your foundational moral principles are (I'm honestly not sure about my own) In practise this is just done by considering how you feel about various controversies/thought experiments and then trying to find the simplest possible consistent framework that explains all of these feelings. But you can easily get wider framework wrong, in ways you might not think of.

Consider my example about Black people again. A typical progressive would agree with the object level statement that you can't judge the entire group of Black people by the behaviour of a tiny unruly minority, and the meta level rule is a pretty reasonable attempt to create a general moral framework that would let us derive this conclusion.

But of course a typical progressive would also agree with the idea that "The police are racist towards black people". If you asked why, this would at least in part be because of events like the death of George Floyd, i.e. actions committed by a small subset of the group. This is of course a pretty common right wing talking point, and can be easily patched by amending the general principle to exclude groups you join voluntarily.

But had our progressive tried going the meta route, they would find themselves hoist by their own petard (Even the amended version runs into difficulties - do homosexuals lose their protected status now, as they can choose to just not indulge their preference? I have yet to see a general moral framework for progressivism that doesn't lead to undesired conclusions)

So instead, our censor (whatever their ideological persuasion), should focus on attacking specific object-level beliefs instead of running the risk of logicking themselves into a corner (and this has the bonus of being more transparent)

Weimar Germany had very strong laws against hate speech, and they prosecuted and banned publication of Der Sturmer more oppressively and consistently than we ban The Daily Stormer in the modern day.

According to the wikipedia page:

"In 1936, the sale of Der Stürmer was restricted in Berlin during the Summer Olympics, in an attempt to preserve the Nazi regime's international reputation and prestige. Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels tried to completely ban the newspaper in 1938,[2] Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring forbade Der Stürmer in all of his departments, and Baldur von Schirach prohibited Hitler Youth members from reading it in Hitler Youth-sponsored hostels and other education facilities by a "Reichsbefehl" ("Reich command")..."

So it seems they were only censored by the Nazis themselves? (I'm unsure whether you just didn't know this or they were also independently censored by the Weimar republic - I couldn't find anything suggesting the latter by a quick google search, but I'd welcome any evidence of this)

For an actual example of hostile censorship of the Nazis, we can note the party was banned following the Beer Hall Putsch.

Did this stop the rise of anti-semitism in pre-Nazi Germany? Because I think the actual outcome we observed was the opposite of what your theory here predicted.

Let's consider the national election results of the Nazi party (prior to Hitler becoming Fuhrer)

In 1928 they had about 10 seats, which is basically nothing, and then they rose to relevance in the 1930 election (alongside the Communists) with about 100 seats. This was due to the Great Depression in 1929 causing unemployment to increase.

On the other hand, the ban of the Nazi party happened before 1928, and so this censorship did not have the effect of somehow rallying the base. Rather the obvious thing happened - i.e. the ban just worked in suppressing them.

I never claimed that censorship is some kind of silver bullet that grants a regime total unqualified immunity from any kind of dissent. It's just a useful tool that increases the odds of a favourable outcome. But in the case of Weimar/Nazi Germany, there was too much ruin to be papered over by propaganda.

Also, if you really believe in what you're saying, I assume that means you are happy when a cause you care about is censored/suppressed? (This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm honestly asking for a yes/no)

I disagree with this argument (and all similar "how would you like it if it were the right wing censoring left wing ideas?" ones)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that (idea) censorship, as a technique, is inherently bad - even if its being done on behalf of your in-group in order to suppress the out-group.

There are techniques that I would consider inherently evil, even if done against people I disagree with (torture, vigilante violence, etc)

But as suppression techniques go, censorship is rather underrated:

  • No one (even the people leading and organising the dissent) actually gets physically harmed.
  • The leaders/organisers can end up in legal trouble if they operate in a jurisdiction with hate speech laws, and will suffer social/professional repercussions. But they knew the consequences of their actions going into this, and a regime can't just sit back and do not nothing as people overtly and openly attempt to undermine it.
  • All the non-dissidents (like me, you, and almost everyone on this forum), are free to openly and honestly discuss our thoughts/beliefs on any topic we want, so long as we stick to discussing, and make a good faith effort to avoid influencing the views of the masses (this is why the Motte remains up and running, and there is no one trying to cancel it, as it only influences a user base numbering in the thousands)

And who will that be, people with power, or people without power. Obviously the former.

Yes, the people in power want to stay in power, and everyone wants to impose what they believe to be moral on reality.

If you genuinely believe that all criticism of Jews is unfounded in reality and that allowing such ideas to exist in the mainstream could lead to a 21st century Holocaust, then why shouldn't you stop these anti-Semites from trying to prosecute such a wantonly cruel agenda?

Sure, it would be bad for your cause if the tables were turned, and it were the enemy in power, censoring all of your own propaganda. And censoring them now will have the second order effect of making it more likely they censor you later on. But that's outweighed by the first order effect of actually censoring them.

...so long as he never indulges them with a real infant.” I’m still going to find any interest in my infant extremely creepy

I don't think this is quite true. I think what gives you the creeps is the fact that this individual is going to pose a heightened risk of committing molestation compared to a normal person, and your reputation is damaged by associating with and tolerating someone paedophile-adjacent.

The first problem is rational, but this is fine if we can actually know for sure that "he never indulges [his fetish] with a real infant" (obviously this is impossible for the real-world, but you're arguing that even if it were, you wouldn't consent)

The second problem is also reasonable (it's why I think I wouldn't consent even if I knew for sure nothing untoward were to happen) - but it would be non-existent if society destigmatised being a "MAP".

So let me pose a more useful hypothetical. Imagine the following:

We live in a world where paedophillia is accepted as an involuntary condition like homosexuality, depression or schizophrenia (there are inevitably some nasty paedophobes, but they're relegated to the fringes of society where they belong)

We celebrate and encourage MAPs ("paedophile" is so clinical and sounds vaguely bigoted) in finding safe ways to cope, such as viewing/drawing lolicon, wearing diapers, etc. (there are some who then actually commit sex crimes, but they are a tiny tiny minority, and only bigots would suggest they are in any way reflective of the MAP community)

In fact one of the members of this oppressed and marginalised community is your brother. Ever since he came out nearly a decade ago, he has never even been accused of doing anything to children. He loves watching animated child pornography (voiced by 18+ actors) and has a diaper fetish, and is open and unashamed about all of these things, as society says he is entitled to be.

Given his squeaky clean record, and the fact you've known him since childhood, you are completely confident that if you let him change your infant's diapers, he wouldn't ever molest it. And your friends and family wouldn't bat an eye to you if you allowed this to happen (indeed if anything, they'd wonder if you might be a bit of a bigot if you don't let him do it)

In this scenario, I would allow my brother to change the diaper. I believe if he did all of this without making lewd comments, it doesn't matter if inside his head this is the hottest thing ever for him - I would view it the same to a heterosexual male gynaecologist treating an attractive young woman.

...pins the blame solely on “privileged white” progressives for spreading and enforcing the things about modern society that they don’t like.

It is true that the progressive racial agenda is driven primarily by non-whites. However (excluding the brief aftermath of George Floyd) the LGBT agenda seems to be much more prominent currently, and this is dominated by whites.

The three most egregious examples - the people who will be first against the wall if I’m ever magically granted dictatorial power - were, respectively, half-Filipino-half-black, fully black, and half-Puerto-Rican-half-white. These three individuals (and they’re far from alone) have significantly damaged the lives of a number of people whom I personally know, and they’ve successfully terrified a great many more people into staying in-line with the approved opinions.

Was this ever done in response to violating orthodoxy on non-racial issues?

Why do you think so many of them are socially “transitioning” to “non-binary” and other sorts of low-investment boutique identities?

This seems to be completely contrary to what I've seen. Every "non-binary" I know of is either a woman or a male homosexual, except for one heterosexual white Chad, but he would be the one who punishes others for being insufficiently progressive. So in any case, this phenomena seems to be motivated primarily by attention-seeking, and, in rare cases, the opportunity to be an activist - but not out of fear you'll be accused of being some brand of bigot.

But to address your general annoyance at anti-woke people complaining about white progressives, I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The problem isn't that they are willing to notice race here, it's just that they refuse to (or are at least extremely averse to) notice race when it would lead to blaming a non-white group.

No, actually they would have been just as well off as their colleagues, because their colleagues are not full time teachers, their colleagues are people who aren't capable of being teachers...

I was answering OP's question about whether the existence of cases like these make it that it is now irrational to not try and game the system - my comment was not making any moral judgements on the people in the class action and what they are/are not entitled to.

From that perspective it does make sense to compare them, as you have, to part-time teachers - as both have the same merit.

Those are both gambles that millions of people made during the 20th century. But the point I think ebrso was making was that working is supposed to be, and has been claimed to be for an exceptionally long time, more lucrative than not working.

And my point is that it still is more lucrative to work than to be unemployed.

Here, there weren't any "non-workers", since the plaintiffs in the class action were just incapable of passing the test - but they had the same outcome as a hypothetical teacher who can pass these exams but deliberately flunks to try and file a discrimination settlement.

And this time around, it happens that the competent (Black and Hispanic) teachers would have actually have been better off if they'd flunked the test.

Of course all of these things are gambles, but I chose them as examples because I believe that they are all bad gambles, that they have negative expected utility. I think a rational actor would choose to pass the test (if they have the ability to do so) instead of taking this wild chance.

But to address the separate point you made - that it is unmeritocratic and unfair that the courts and politicians allowed such a situation to occur, in which the general public was forced to subsidise incompetence - I fully agree.

Though I think the behaviour of the plaintiffs was understandable, and I can't honestly say I would have done any differently in their shoes (The only downside of filing such a suit is the massive damage to your reputation caused by being seen as a welfare queen begging for handouts. But a demoted part-time substitute public school teacher has very little to begin with, and doesn't suffer much from losing it)

to what extent (if at all) do such high-profile, lottery-style bonanzas undermine the case for honest, low-paid toil among the working class?

I think this makes it more rational to avoid honest work by only a negligible amount.

From the perspective of a working class person, the existence of such opportunities is no different from all the other "lottery-style" phenomena that already exist (becoming a reality TV star, famous YouTuber, an actual lottery, etc.)

In this case things happened to work out very nicely for a lot of the plaintiffs, and they received hundreds of thousands dollars without having to perform any labour. However if the bureaucrats had had less progressive sympathies, or anything else had gone wrong, they would just be far worse off than their colleagues who had passed the test and continued to be full time teachers.

Also, reading the article, and the suit (http://www.gulinolitigation.com/docs/DK%20001.pdf), the plaintiffs continued to follow the path of low-paid work even after the class action was filed. And they all seem to have made a sincere attempt to pass the tests ("...Grim recalled hiring private tutors and studying for it during the early 1990s, before failing many times.")

The lawsuit was not a case of lazy people trying to get the money for nothing. They just lacked the aptitude to pass the tests, and continued to work hard for even lower pay/prestige - I believe that they did not (originally) want this, and just wanted to be allowed to teach full time.

Events like this feel deeply unfair - why work your whole life if you can get paid to not work?

"Why get a driver's license when you could go your whole life without ever getting pulled over by the police?"

"Why not smoke when sometimes smokers live to a 100 and non-smokers sometimes get lung cancer anyway?"

The event feels unfair, but mainly in the sense that all situations involving a small probability of an extreme event feel unfair when the extreme event occurs (though obviously there is a racial angle - I think with regards to that, the settlement was genuinely unfair)

I think on average it's still better to go the straightforward path of value-producing labour. This is much more stable, and almost certainly has a higher expected value (As OP notes, and I agree, this case seems pretty unusual, and so such a tactic is unlikely to work out - but I would be open to evidence to the contrary)

The article quotes a transgender actress Indya Moore. I've never heard of her before (despite watching quite a lot of US TV shows) and I imagine she is close to irrelevant.

This definitely doesn't feel reflective of the transgender movement. Indeed, reading the exact quote:

A biologically female penis is a non artificial penis (eg: dildo, vibrator,) that is part of a biological (human) woman’s body. https://t.co/Br8cvs9yfQ

Moore is contradicting the logic of gender ideology. The adjective "female" is supposed to refer to sex not gender, yet here she clearly equates the two, despite the most important principle of the ideology being that sex and gender are completely orthogonal concepts.

Hence I do not think this proves anything. It is just an example of someone misunderstanding, or being more realistic, someone trying to downplay the existence of sex.