FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
There aren't any substantial actual claims in there, just a demand for changing language
Precisely - I'm trying to give a formulation that doesn't require lies or logical inconsistency.
so what benefit does this redefinition offer?
It makes people with gender dysphoria less sad. And also some might just prefer a language / culture like this for aesthetic reasons.
I'm not saying this is an obviously worthwhile price to pay, in fact there isn't an objectively correct answer for this sort of subjective moral question. There are just people's differing preferences
They aren't, though
I was referring to the fact that the categories of "male/female" are so basic and obvious, they are hard to define. And that people just think of them as primitive concepts in practice - you gave a definition (and it is a good one!), but I doubt you ever thought of man/woman needing a definition prior to gender ideology.
In case you are pattern matching me to those who try and deny sex exists, I want to make clear I am not saying the "old system" is in any way inconsistent or incoherent. I agree male/female are real, meaningful concepts.
Okay, but I'll ask this question for the millionth time – what is gender identity?
I explained my definition of gender identity immediately after asserting it's existence and the corresponding language changes.
What, then, to do with the male people who purport to "identify as" women and yet make no effort to make themselves more like women than they could be e.g. the ~95% of trans-identified males who don't undergo bottom surgery?
Ok, this is a good point. I will then amend my definition (I have edited my original comment) of [gender] to mean "wanting to be like [sex] in most regards".
So we can still have a trans woman with a penis, as long as she wants to be a female in most other ways, like wearing dresses, being perceived as a female, etc
What gives you the impression that the complainant in this case had a "sincere desire" to be female? I can think of few things less typically female than impregnating someone with your fully intact and functional penis.
See my above ammendment. Obviously the perception of sincerity depends on your own personal judgement, but I was more referring to cases where the person is likely trying to be a woman just to get a temporary benefit (like the situation where a male is sentenced to prison and then afterwards claims to want to be a woman)
Is your claim then that this child, wholly unique in the annals of human history, has no male biological parent?
No, that would be insane. This is just a mundane change of definitions - under gender theory, "father" refers to gender identity instead of sex. The child has a male and female parent, like every other human child - but the male parent has a woman gender identity.
Because that's what the word "father" means in a legal context
Part of the goals of the theory is to change all of these definitions to refer to gender instead of sex, including in the law.
And you wonder why people assert that gender ideology is anti-scientific claptrap?
As I conceded at the very start:
I am aware that the stance in practice varies between activists, and they often contradict one another
I am providing a formulation of gender ideology that would allow for most of the stuff that happens in practice, without having to need to resort to lies or logical inconsistency.
You seem to conflate changing definitions with changing the underlying meaning of statements and lying. Addressing an analogy you made elsewhere that isn't gender specific:
Well, I don't care if an official proclamation from a state body that "the earth is 6,000 thousand years old" is followed by a footnote clarifying that the word "year" is here defined as a unit of time equal to 756,667 rotations around the sun. That might make creationists feel more "included", but it's still a lie.
Again that is not a lie! It is just a redefinition. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and under this change it would still be that old, but we just wouldn't be able to talk about the old unit of a year, and instead have to talk about the new invented unit.
I agree this, and gender theory, is an inconvenience and makes reasoning about things more difficult. But that is not lying.
I already expressed my thoughts on why this case in particular is not actually about transgenderism downthread, and the decision doesn't contradict her being a woman.
EDIT: I think my main objection here is the twisted logic on show: "You can't call me a 'father', I'm a woman! women are not fathers!" Yeah, but people with functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant can be women. Uh-huh.
I don't see anything twisted in this logic at all.
I'll start with my steelman for transgender ideology, so you know where I'm coming from. I am aware that the stance in practice varies between activists, and they often contradict one another, but I suspect the framing I give below would still make most anti-trans people unhappy, so it is not about "twisted logic", but rather a values difference.
Without any kind of gender theory:
- Humans can be separated into the categories "male/men" and "female/women" (male/men, woman/female and sex/gender are synonyms)
- These categories are hard to verbalise. There are a bunch of single criteria (XX vs XY, penis vs vagina, ovaries vs not ovaries, etc) that almost totally overlap, and deal with most cases. And they all make up the definition: a woman is still a woman after a hysterectomy (because she satisfies all the other things)
- But the existence of these categories, and the way we assign people into them, is common-sense to everyone (outside of extremely rare medical cases)
Let's call this the "old" system ("cis(hetero)normativity", I suppose)
Now let's make binary transgender ideology (just 2 genders for now):
- I define a new sort of identity marker (next to stuff like race, sex, age, etc) called "gender identity" (or "gender" for short)
- This is a redefinition of the old concept of gender. We will still keep the word "sex" to refer to the old-fashioned thing above.
- I also redefine "man", "woman", "boy" and "girl" to now refer to gender identity, instead of sex
- Same for any other gendered (pro)nouns (fireman, mother, lesbian, etc) - we can only refer to sex by male/female (and references to sex should be avoided where possible)
- Being a man/woman means sincerely wanting to be (EDIT: mostly) male/female (this, but unironically)
To address the typical complaints/questions about gender ideology:
- This is not tethered to claims about objective reality: nothing about trans women having "female brains", the effect eostrogen has on sports performance, etc - this is a purely moral framework
- There are no weird logical contortions about how sex is a spectrum. Sex is real, but it just shouldn't talked about for moral reasons.
- In this framework, it does not count as a "lie" to use trans people's pronouns. It is merely an acceptance of a redefinition of language, and agreement to look at things a different way (people might still be uncomfortable with this, but it wouldn't be an objective lie, like saying "the sky is red")
- The definition of man/womanhood is not-circular (it goes back to referencing the already established notion of sex)
- There is the issue of practically judging "sincerity" of desire. But I think most anti-trans people are unhappy even in cases where there is clearly a sincere desire (e.g. this one!)
- And as for the general "Is a [bunch of masculine features] person really a woman? Seriously?" type "questions": yes. That is what this framework includes under the category of "woman" - you can of course morally oppose the framework on this basis. But it doesn't prove the framework itself is illogical.
With this framework, let's address your complaint.
"You can't call me a 'father', I'm a woman! women are not fathers!"
Correct, she is not a father. She is a woman, and fathers are men. Calling her a father is in direct violation of transgender ideology ("transphobic", if we wish to pathologise it)
Yeah, but people with functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant can be women
Individuals with "functioning male reproductive systems that are capable of getting cis women pregnant" are males, and are typically men. But they do not have to be men, and in this case, the individual is not a man, she is a woman.
Now of course, this framing I gave above doesn't get respected by TRAs in real life. Indeed, the woman in this very case makes a mistake:
“I feel it would invalidate me as a trans woman, invalidate my legal status as a woman and invalidate my same-sex marriage,” she said.
She is supposed to say same-gender marriage! (Or gay/lesbian, which sounds less awkward than "same-gender")
Remind me again about how, silly normies, gender is not the same as sex and we're not making any claims that biological sex is the same thing as preferred gender, so just shut up and give in on our totally reasonable requests?
You are right to call this out. My most charitable explanation is that she just misspoke when she said "same-sex" (other than that, she didn't say anything contradictory) - though it does seem that as of late, TRAs has started conflating the 2 concepts (more egregiously are the terms MtF and FtM, which refer to sex!)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
Why? What does it matter to you if the state calls her a woman or man, mother or father? At least in the women's sports and prison rape questions I can see the negative externalities, here I don't see how it affects your life at all...
If we grant the premise that it can affect someone's life via sports/prison, then the question of the extent to which trans women should be recognised as women in any facet of life becomes relevant. If she is treated as a woman in something unrelated to sports/prison, then it makes it easiser to argue to treat her as a women in sports/prison too.
You seem to agree that the child should legally have a right to Irish citizenship so presumably the outcome will be the same either way.
Again, I fail to see the effect on your life besides you getting angry about a news story and complaining on the internet.
The kid is going to get citizenship either way if I'm understanding correctly, it's just a question of what gender/sex the state recognizes this individual as?
See above.
Having said that... I don't think this particular case is an example of anti-trans legislation. Quoting the article:
The woman submitted that the Department of Foreign Affairs informed her that “under Irish law, as applied to date, the mother of the child is the woman who gives birth to the child and therefore the child would derive their citizenship through that mother”.
This law discriminates against this woman on the basis of her infertility, not her AMAB status. And since there is no widespread movement to try and declare infertile cis women as not-real-women, I don't think this, to quote the defendant, "invalidates her legal status as a woman"
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
As I said, there will be some kind of backlash when lots of innocents are victimised, and their stories are told. I think somehow this would lead to the problem being solved (e.g. by increased police patrols in the area) - and I'm advocating we shouldn't blame the victims for this, because that makes society more accepting of the crime.
And I'm coming at this from the angle of how the whole of society should operate, as opposed to one-(wo)man operations where someone walks around as bait and executes street criminals.
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Your example requires 4th order effects? I think anything past 2nd order starts to get into low probability land
This seems totally orthogonal to whether positive/negative rights are meaningful. You are arguing that on net, the activist's behaviour is bad for their cause, which may be true.
But I am just pointing out that the decision to not go along with their demands counts as a violation of a negative right. Because that specific 4th order effect I gave is a negative right that is being violated.
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Sorry, I mixed up positive/negative rights there (I have edited my comment to correct this)
But you can just reframe positive rights as negative rights, e.g.
- Positive: Trans women have the right to use the women's locker room
- Negative: People have the right not to be excluded from locker rooms on the basis of their sex
And just generally, "I have a right to X" --> "I have a right to not be deprived of X"
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Both are virtuous in the sense that the problems would go away if most of society adopted the habit of exercising their right to walk around public spaces. There would initially be lots of rapes/muggings, but then there would be a backlash and something would be done to get rid of the evil predators.
When people instead opt to just avoid those areas, they cede those areas to the predators.
And on an individual level, the predators would now actually have committed a crime they could be charged for (instead of just being menacing but legal)
Perhaps we mean different things by virtuous. I use virtuous to mean pro-social behaviour - there is no requirement for some sort heroism or struggle (but it includes stuff like that too)
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think @quiet_NaN is being literal with the hypothetical here.
As in, what if a normal woman literally decided, against common sense, to walk around in a bad part of town at night in a miniskirt alone? (Sometimes it is nice to go on a night walk, and she likes her miniskirt as an outfit)
So there is no crime or even unwholesomeness involved at all on her part (I don't think this is a good analogy for Pretti though)
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Well actually negative rights is a pretty defined concept.
I disagree - all "positive rights" can be reframed as negative by considering nth order effects.
The argument the activist gave was a bad one - as you said, he could just not go to the party.
But what about: Corvos was encouraging society to view David Bowie as not a bad person, undermining feminism / "rape culture", and making it more likely for people to vote for right wing things, making it more likely for laws to be passed that oppress the activist. Therefore Corvos was infringing on his friend's negative rights.
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
This is perfectly normal politics. These are simply table stakes. Government is about making people do things with the threat of violence. Which people, and why, are left to be determined by the people.
I agree. It's just that when activists bring up this true fact (at least, the part about how their side is being oppressed), I think the honest (but very uncomfortable) counter-argument is: "yes, I do want to oppress you and restrict your rights, not because I hate you, but because each of our respective rights infringe on the other's"
But WC's characterisation of "if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way" seems to imply the opposite - that political speech doesn't cause harm to others. I am arguing that it in fact does.
Democracy is supposed to be an alternative to murder and war, so when someone participating in Democracy as intended gets murdered for it, it's far beyond the pale.
Agreed, and I think that description definitely describes Kirk. To me, Pretti doesn't count under this, because he committed a crime, was resisting arrest, and just generally not speaking peacefully (excluding nth order effects) like Kirk was.
But to leftists / liberals, these sorts of "0000001mm away from their faces" struggles with LEOs is seen as an integral part of Democracy ("ACAB" - so it is important to constantly antagonise them to make sure they know it's not okay to ever overreach), in the same way conservatives would view people like Kirk making speeches even when parts of the speeches might come across as offensive.
And YoungAchamian is pointing out that both of these are technically legal, and to their own side, it is the right and proper way to do things, and to the other side it violates the spirit of Democracy, if not the letter.
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
My understanding is that the legal system draws a distinction between "move, I want that seat" and "hey nigger move your bitch ass or I'll rape your ugly retarded mother,"
You've changed the hypothetical completely - originally it was someone being verbally offensive, and was talking about their own rape. Now your hypothetical person is trying to forcefully displace someone from their seat. Neither of these (not even the more banal "move, I want that seat") are okay to say - and I would be open to a self-defense argument there.
but it certainly is a sign of poor judgement.
Sure. But I disagree that poor judgement in this case amounts to any level of guilt. Even though we live in an imperfect world where crime occurs, we should avoid blaming people for being victimised to avoid legitimising crime.
Breaking into a private biker bar and shouting "rape me pussies." Yeah... that one is your fault.
If you break into a private establishment, then yes, things become grayer. I am okay with actual lethal violence in that case, and might even overlook rape - just on the principle that once you trespass you essentially forfeit all your rights.
But again, this doesn't map to the original hypothetical, because "the bad part of town" is not private property (not even at night), and the public has a (pro-social) right to be there.
...but at some point people need to understand that their actions have consequences and they become part of the blame equation.
Only if those actions are inherently bad (like breaking and entering, obstructing the duties of law enforcement, etc), if they are good/neutral, then the only people to blame are the criminals who enforce these wholly illegitimate consequences.
Yeah man, sometimes if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way
I did not follow the guy, but looking at his Wikipedia page, he advocated the following:
- Banning trans women from using women's locker rooms
- A ban on trans gender-affirming care ("We must ban trans-affirming care — the entire country...")
- The right for people to burn Pride and BLM flags.
- Not wearing masks during COVID
- Criminalising abortion
I have worded the above very carefully, to reflect stuff he literally said (as opposed to things that could be reasonably inferred, like "I believe marriage is one man, one woman" -> ban gay marriage)
The mechanism is not "abstract". He directly advocated for society to do things that would deprive certain people of (EDIT: positive) rights. Nor is the harm "abstract" - it is a form of harm to not let trans women use the women's locker rooms, prevent them from getting hormones, not letting LGBT people live in a society where no one burns pride flags, etc
This logic cuts both ways, e.g. the trans activist's words attempt to deprive him of the right to live in a cisheteronormative society. But this logic is sound (both ways)
I'm not really going anywhere with this, because this sort of thinking basically ends with endless conflict. I can't think of a better practical option than just tabooing this sort of inference. But I do want to point out, for the sake of epistemic clarity, that it is not as simple as you claim.
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Echoing my comment to @ThomasdelVasto:
As a more immediate note - if you wear a gun in front of cops you have certainly behavioral responsibilities that he did not meet on multiple occasions.
Agreed. The cops are doing an necessary job, so there is a tradeoff between exercising your rights and obstructing them from their duties.
...he did it while wearing a miniskirt and making racial slurs and daring people to assault him. This certainly doesn't ethically clear any rapists in full
It doesn't ethically clear the rapists at all. Unlike LEOs, Criminals are not a necessary part of society, and no one is ever has "behavioural responsibilities" to avoid provoking them to commit crimes. Actually it would be especially important to make sure the rapists were prosectued to the full extent of the law, to make it clear to everyone that it is never okay to commit crimes, even if someone verbally offends you.
He would also be a guilty party for being hostile and antisocial (but his guilt would be dwarfed by the rapists')
These people are explicitly trying to provoke violence. That would be like if a super hot woman walks around a crime riddled area in a bikini repeatedly telling all the men how horny she is and that she bets they'd like to get some of this.
If a woman walked around anywhere and told men "how horny she is and that she bets they'd like to get some of this", then I think she should get in (mild) trouble for some kind of public indecency (and maybe she should also get in trouble for wearing a bikini )
If she got raped/assaulted/etc, then the blame would fall solely on the attacker(s). In fact, assuming she did get victimised (and not just a bunch of disgusted looks for being obscene), she would actually be acting virtuously.
When law-abiding citizens make the selfish (but completely understandable, given modern progressive attitudes to crime) decision to just avoid "crime-riddled areas", "no-go zones", etc, it helps hide how bad those places are: whilst an actual crime incident is objective and legible in statistics, it's much harder to quantify this sort of "latent" crime which would have hypothetically taken place if someone had walked down the street at night alone, but didn't happen because they predicted that and stayed away instead.
People should walk down the streets anywhere, at anytime, no matter how vulnerable and/or sexually alluring. And the police should come down hard when a criminal preys on said person. And if a criminal keeps doing the same thing, they should be permanently removed from society - they aren't Minecraft mobs who naturally spawn whenever there is a low population density.
I think the actual distinction between Pretti and the miniskirt hypothetical is that ICE fulfills a necessary role in society, so there is a tradeoff to be made in letting them do their jobs vs preventing overreach. There is no such trade-off for a criminal.
... especially from liberals. "So... basically you want an underclass of underpaid, easily exploited labor with no real rights so your grocery bills will stay low?"
I disagree this is in conflict with the liberal (i.e. pro-illegal-immigrant wellbeing) position.
Allowing the illegal immigrant to stay in the country is clearly in their interest. No matter how bad the conditions are, we know this is a good deal for them, because their revealed preference is to stay in the country as an illegal.
They are only "underpaid" relative to a legal citizen. But the liberal isn't able to give them citizenship - so trying to get society to look the other way and let them stay is the next best thing. And ditto for exploitation.
In general I find this line of thinking - in which it constitutes "exploitation" to give someone in a really bad situation a kinda bad option - very odd. See also:
- It is morally neutral to just not help some random homeless woman (we're both doing it right now)
- It is (extremely) virtuous to give her money, no-strings-attached, so she can get off the streets and back on her feet.
- It is villainous (worse than just not helping at all) to do the above via hiring a prostitute. Even though she prefers to make the trade, this constitutes "exploitation".
The end result of this logic seems to incentivise avoiding interacting with suffering people at all.
“IQ scores by ethnic group in a nationally-representative sample of 10-year old American children” by John G.R. Fuerst, writing as “Chuck” on HumanVarieties.org, May 2023
In a 2023 paper, Mr. Fuerst tried to rank the intelligence of children across ethnic groups. But the sample size for the vast majority of groups was far too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
The sample sizes are indeed pretty small for most of the races: only 7 / 30 have sample mean std error < 1.0 (I am referring to the raw M column):
- Many adjacent ranks are close to random guessing (IQ(Chinese) > IQ(Japanese) w.p. 64%)
- And multiple testing makes this even worse (I didn't choose to compare e.g. Chinese vs Japanese before looking at the data)
But... there is an obvious and natural comparison to make, that pretty much everyone on either side would have in mind before looking at any specific data: Black vs White! The sample sizes here are 1.5k and 5.9k, so the sample mean error is less than 0.5. And the M difference is ~40, so actually the data does "support" HBD (given the sd gap here, it feels like understatement to say "supports" as if we just found p = 0.03 or something)
And in fact, as a bonus: there are 30 groups, and 2*norm_cdf(-4) * nCr(30, 2) = 0.02, so if we only take 8sd gaps as significant, we can make all the admissible comparisons simultaeneously with 98% certainty. The data supports, e.g.
- IQ(Chinese) > IQ(Dominicans) (Despite samples sizes of just 81 and 38)
- IQ(White) > IQ(Central / South American)
and many other comparative IQ statements (but not all, this is a pretty conservative analysis: IQ(White Cuban) ?? IQ(Black Carribean)) that would be completely obvious to some random redneck guy.
But the sample size for the vast majority of groups was far too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
If he'd just made a more nebulous claim like "[the] NIH Toolbox battery is fluid-intelligence loaded." (like the original paper itself conceded!), this would have been much more debatable. But instead he told a straight up untruth.
I just cannot think of a charitable take here, it seems to be a mixture between:
- McIntire is pretending to have expertise / understanding he does not have. It sure seems like he skimmed the paper, saw Chuck's disclaimer "Bear in mind that the sample sizes are often small and so the corresponding estimates are imprecise", and then changed "[some] estimates" to "[any] ranking" in his head, because they are related concepts.
- McIntire understands what the data implies, but he is running cover for the "good guys", saying random stuff like this to trick normies for the greater good (I can get behind this kind of thinking to an extent, but this brazen level of deceit feels too far)
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Well, sure - if he actually lied, and in fact had non-consensually made them do it, then yes it would be uncontroversially bad (because rape, irregardless of victim age, is bad)
No, I do not uncritically accept a convicted pederast's version of exactly how his act of child molestation transpired. It rather alarms me that you, apparently, do.
I concede it is very possible he lied and only gave a warped version of events to his wife to soothe his guilt. I was originally just assuming he told the full truth, since he was confessing to a crime, but I realise that sometimes even when people admit wrongdoing, they only admit to parts of it.
But this feels like a dodge - certainly what the defendent described as happening could happen. And it seems that everyone views even that as wrong. Would you be okay with it if the defendant provided objective proof that it was consensual? (e.g. by a video recording)
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
I find it hard to believe that the behavior depicted in this particular case would inflict any permanent psychological harm on the children involved
This really isn't helping the impression that you're being a little oblivious here.
I think you are confusing 2 things:
- Thinking this kind of thing causes permanent psychological harm
- Thinking that many in society believe (or say they believe, to avoid repercussions) this kind of thing causes permanent psychological harm
I assume TK is aware of (2), but he is contesting (1). It does not seem at all obvious that this action, where there was not only consent, but the children actively engaged in the behaviour themselves, suggesting they enjoyed it ("...then allowed both children...") - would actually cause permanent psychological harm.
FlyOnTheWall
8mo ago
Firstly, in the hentai, the acts described/drawn are entirely fictional, whilst this case actually happened in reality (and actually even the hentai stuff is controversial - see the debate on loli/shota and AI child porn)
And regarding whether this sort of thing is actually that bad (as you have argued in your defense downthread), you said:
It isn't as if he caused severe injuries to the three-year-old by inserting his penis into her vagina
There are 3 pretty standard arguments for this:
- It causes severe psychological harm to the child
- Children are (definitionally) unable to consent, so any child-adult sex is auto-rape.
- Sexual degeneracy like this harms society because it screws with the social fabric (though this argument is only made by right-wingers)
This case actually seems like an excellent counterexample to (2). Indeed, prior to this hearing about this case, I was only open to considering the possibility of young children (~6yo+) being capable of consent. But this seems like a very clear example of non-verbal consent from toddlers ("Defendant then allowed both children to lick the honey off his penis.")
And I'm generally pretty skeptical on all of those points, and suspect anti-pedosexual sentiments are driven in no small part by irrational disgust towards unusual sexualities.
...that being said, this is the Friday Fun (i.e. no culture war) Thread. And so you shouldn't really be bringing up this question (which, irregardless of how reasonable the response is, does evoke an offence/disgust response in many readers), even by proxy (but you could totally bring it up in the CW thread, and I encourage you to do so)
FlyOnTheWall
9mo ago
I won't comment on the object level question of how good the post is. I haven't read it properly either, and the spinoff question about AI-influenced content (specifically, on a discussion forum) is more interesting to me anyways.
There seems to be 2 competing ideas of the purpose of this forum:
- A platform for human socialising, centered around serious political discussion (see e.g. your comment)
- A place for truth-seeking (see e.g. @SecureSignal's comment)
I always just sort of assumed that truth-seeking was the primary goal of the forum (and the socialisation stuff like Wellness Wednesday kinda just happens, because we are in fact humans and not inference machines), and interpreted all the rules as acting in service to that (e.g. we get free speech, because sometimes the truth is highly offensive, etc)
But the recent discourse around AI usage seems to go against this. If this place is about human interaction, then using AI is automatically dumb, irregardless of quality, as you say downthread:
... this place is for human interaction. If you're not using your own words, what's the fucking point?
...but if we are here for truth-seeking, then it shouldn't matter if someone used AI or not, it's like retroactively deciding you don't like a dish because the chef used cumin.
As in, it still makes sense to stop reading/engaging seriously with a poster because they establish a track record of bad (irrelevant, uninformative, lies, etc) posts - but the reason should be because the actual end result is bad, not because you disapprove of the process.
FlyOnTheWall
9mo ago
Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?
This doesn't feel like a good description of typical reasons:
- Elite takeover: Sure
- "Demographic replacement": ...by which races? I'm guessing a MAGA would feel quite differently about Japanese vs Somalian demographic replacement.
- Unintegrated criminals: This is the most extreme example of the kind of thing conservatives are worried about. But I assume they are also worried about less egregious kinds of bad behaviour / non-assimilation (e.g. taking minimum wage jobs, nepotism, general anti-social behaviour etc)
His actions are in reaction to unintegrated criminals, primarily from Islamist nations. Why would you expect it to affect Mexico, India or the Philippines ?
But you could also view this crime through a racial lens instead of a religious one, i.e. races that have bad HBD stats (which pretty much aligns with the 3rd World) are more likely to bring problems like this
And also because he explicitly claimed he would do it in his Truth Social post: "...I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries..."
Apart from criminality, How does Trump define 'incompatible with western civilization' ? ... IMO, it's a whole lot of words that mean nothing.
Like most political things, it is kind of fuzzy ("what is a woman?", etc) - but I think everyone, including non-supporters, are roughly aware of what he is talking about (even if they don't like his definition)
As a rough definition, how about "compatible with a supermajority of Whites"?
Personally, I'm sick of white supremacists using motte-and-baileys to criticize immigrants.
It's revealing that Indians, Mexicans and Filipinos are the main groups they have issues with.
...
There is no venn diagram that fits all 3 groups except - "not white".
I mean... they don't seem to have a problem with East Asians (indeed, such a sentiment is fringe even on the Motte), who are a large and well-known class of non-White. Also you left out Blacks from your list (there was the whole "Haitian pet eating" thing)
Another very reasonable category that fits would be "low-IQ races". And I think it fits better, because of the general right-wing affinity towards East Asians.
If you want fewer non-whites. Just say that.
As I said, I think it is closer to wanting fewer people from low-IQ races. Irregardless, both of these sentiments lie far outside the Overton window.
On the Motte, people should be honest about what they want (and the commenters who feel either way have been forthright about this) - but in actual politics, the goal of speeches, rhetoric etc is to try and achieve a goal (as opposed to truth-seeking), so obviously you should not phrase your desire in terms of out-of-Overton-window ideas.
As for anti-Indian sentiment. Firstly, I'm not sure how real it is beyond just general anti-brown-people sentiment. And I don't think the more "storytelling" explanations (culture, nepotism, etc) given down-thread are particularly convincing.
I think the crux of anti-Indian sentiment is due to an especially low average IQ. Ideally, this would not matter, because appropriate filtering would account for it. But in practice lots of low-IQ people will manage to slip through the cracks somehow (fraud, a left-wing government loosens restrictions, etc), and then cause problems for the host country, because they are a (close to) unfiltered sample.
FlyOnTheWall
10mo ago
The anti-Semites start with the Jew-hate for basically irrational reasons, and then come up with rationalizations. That's why the bulverism and mockery; the rational arguments are just window-dressing and the anti-Semites are unreachable by any means.
I mean, I agree. But this argument is fully general for any descriptive position on reality I think is wrong (doesn't what you've said also apply to, e.g. religion?) Their reasons only appear irrational from our perspective. And symmetrically, the rest of the forum are irrational people unwilling to question the mainstream narrative.
So, if we allow people to do this sort of stuff, at best it leads to a one-sided soft-censoring of certain topics (you can advocate for X, but then you get no protection from others by the mods but are still held to the rules yourself), or worse it leads to discussion on a topic becoming totally devoid of object-level content, just both sides explaining why their opponent really said what they said.
FlyOnTheWall
10mo ago
Jews are like 2% of the US population and look white, barely anyone would notice their existence...
No? As I pointed out, they are hugely overrepresented in basically any kind of elite thing. e.g. they make up ~1/4 of all Physics Nobel prizes. I suppose they might fly under the radar for normies, but if you have any kind of intellectual inclinations, you'd end up noticing Jews (our forum is literally an offshoot of a Jewish blogger)
general Israel bullshittery.
But calling it "bullshittery" is kind of begging the question. The usual logic goes that the Jews are tricking the US government into backing a "foreign" (i.e. non-White) state's interest at the expense of American Whites. But this only makes sense if we have already established the Jews aren't really White and are hostile mimics. Otherwise the "Israel bullshittery" is just a specific kind of White advancing the interests of the White race.
To be clear, I don't believe this, and any similar claims about biological reality.
I mean... yeah? That's not even being denied here, she is just arguing this is a good thing (and I was explaining the logically consistent framework behind this demand)
More options
Context Copy link