Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1hr ago
I just started Oathbringer, the third novel in the Stormlight Archive series. I really enjoyed the second half of The Way Of Kings and the first two-thirds of Words Of Radiance, but I found the
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5hr ago
I really appreciate this comment, because it reveals that I have put too much trust in commentators who are either extrapolating from incomplete information, or simply grasping at straws. I should have used more humility before speaking confidently regarding a topic about which I lacked sufficient direct knowledge!
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
22hr ago
No. You are still missing the point I was trying to make. By all means, perhaps it matters that the characters are white. My argument is that (the pro-race-blind-casting position is that) it shouldn't matter if a character who is theoretically white within the story is played by an actor who is visibly black.
Buddy… appearance is part of acting. One uses one’s physical body to portray actions, emotion, intent, etc. This is also why we use costuming and make-up to alter actors’ appearances to better fit the story we’re attempting to tell. The hypothetical “steel-manned pro-race-blind-casting advocate” would readily acknowledge the absurdity of making a Pride and Prejudice film in which one of the actors (and only one) decided to wear a Led Zeppelin t-shirt and cargo shorts while the rest of the actors wore period clothing. The only artistically-defensible reason to do so is if one were trying to make some sort of meta-commentary. And sure, I could definitely imagine an artfully-done version of this, intentionally poking at the conventions of filmmaking and storytelling, forcing audiences to confront their own expectations, etc. That’s its own genre, though, and is obviously very distinct from genres in which verisimilitude is valued and important.
What you’re failing to grapple with is the distinct expectations that separate different genres. The Muppets can get away with what they do because they’re in a specific genre in which verisimilitude does not, and cannot, exist as an expectation. There are no real-world analogues for talking frogs and green furry guys who live in trash cans. The conventions of the genre have specific demands and expectations, and the audience is already bought into them. What you’re now asking audiences to do is alter their expectations such that all genres throw out previous expectations of visual verisimilitude, and adopt ones closer to madcap puppet comedy. And you don’t seem to have a coherent artistic reason why, since you don’t seem to have properly internalized why so many genres had that expectation in the first place.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
23hr ago
and to make fewer snide comments about the apparent population genetics of the Ring of Powers Shire being implausible, which is, again, missing the point on a level with complaining that a Muppet doesn't look like a real barnyard animal.
You have chosen an especially poor example with Rings Of Power, because it belies either an ignorance about the purpose behind Tolkien’s work, or else an intentional disregard for it. Tolkien’s Middle Earth stories are intended as an ersatz mythos for the historical peoples of the British Isles; the various peoples and factions of the world are rough stand-ins or symbolic idealizations of the various ethnic groups and their myths which have coalesced into the modern (white) peoples of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. (And, by extension, the Celtic and North Germanic peoples of Continental Europe.) Gondor as a rough analogue for Roman-Celtic Britain, Rohan as the horse-obsessed Anglo-Saxons, Elves as the remnants of the pre-Aryan Neolithic peoples, etc. To the extent that this matters to you, it should matter that the actors involved at least plausibly physically resemble somebody belonging to, or descending from, those peoples. It matters that they’re white in a way that it doesn’t matter if the actors in a Star Wars film are white.
You dodged Nybbler’s pretty incisive point about a non-black actor playing a historically black individual. If a director set out to make a Harriet Tubman biopic and chose to cast Saiorse Ronan in the title role, there is no amount of “she just really crushed the audition, and I’ve always wanted to work with her” that would suffice to excuse what would be (correctly) interpreted at a slap in the face to black Americans. They own Harriet Tubman’s legacy in a way that white people obviously don’t. She means something to them, it’s important for them to see themselves in her, and pretty much everybody understands that.
So then the question is, are white people allowed to own any historical figures or stories of their own? Is it right and fair for white British people, a great many of whom are directly descended from RAF pilots, to expect that a casting director honor the reality of what those men looked like, sounded like, etc.? Is it fair for Brits to want to see themselves reflected accurately on screen? What about their fictional/mythical but still important figures? King Arthur? Sherlock Holmes? Jeeves and Wooster? Mr. Darcy?
I expect that your answer might be, “Sure, but that doesn’t mean any individual casting director has any obligation to care about that.” But I don’t think you actually believe that. I think you recognize that there is an explicitly redistributive aspect to modern race-swapped casting. A desire to make up for past wrongs and throw a bone to non-white actors who’ve had a relatively rougher go of it than their white companions. Isn’t that why you would “encourage” directors to keep doing it if you had the power to do so?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2d ago
This is an astute observation, but I assume you can reason out what the result would be if an entire generation or two of Americans were raised only being exposed to the counterfactual reality presented in media, with no knowledge of our exposure to the mundane-but-not-telegenic underlying reality. They’d have an extremely skewed understanding of what the world is actually like.
Will be curious to see how the tone of shows like this changes having now entered an era of “reckoning” and “post-mortems” of democratic hubris.
This appears not to be happening at all, so far as I can tell. After a brief but abortive period of maybe a couple of weeks immediately following the election, in which it seemed like there might be some small but sincere effort toward this, progressives appear overwhelmingly to have hunkered down into a stance that they were right all along and that the voters really are just too irredeemable to ever be trusted again. Go on Bluesky and see how people who are perceived to be advocating “popularism” are treated. (You’re accused of throwing trans people and minorities to the wolves, betraying them for short-term mercenary political gain.)
A handful of smart-but-cynical elite figures like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein might be trying to conduct a proper course-correction, but they appear to have little or no influence on the tier of progressives thought leaders and activists just below them. Presumably television scriptwriters are on the tier even below that one, totally insulated from the imprecations of politically-savvy wonks.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2d ago
and the only thing it accomplishes is to potentially egg on the next mass shooter
Do you genuinely believe that the next mass shooter is reading The Motte? And if the answer is yes, do you believe that his opinions would not have been radicalized if not for having read racially-tinged comments on The Motte?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2d ago
"don't adopt a black kid, they're all bad, and they're ruining everything".
No, the actual claim is, “The specific black kids who are up for adoption/fostering in America are, to an extremely large extent, likely to be a huge problem.” They are not a randomly-selected cross-section of the overall black population. There is a reason why they are up for adoption, and it is nearly always a terrible reflection on the parents.
If you accept any sort of hereditarian explanation of human behavior, then it should matter to you that the kid you’re considering for adoption is very very very likely to be the child of A) a drug addict), B) an incarcerated person, or C) a teenage unwed mother. (Or the very common D) all of the above.) The same traits that led such a person to such a lowly state are likely to manifest at least to some extent in the child as well. Even if you don’t accept any hereditarian claims, you still have to worry about things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, childhood malnutrition, and even neglect/abuse leading to stunted cognitive/physical development, etc. Again, these things are not guaranteed to make the child a ticking time bomb, but the likelihood is far from zero.
These things are at least partially true of non-black children up for adoption or in the foster system as well, but to a markedly lesser extent. The likelihood of these problems just is higher when it comes to adopting a black child. That could change at some point down the road, and certainly there are numerous exceptions and success stories even today, but that doesn’t mean it’s immoral or misguided to take these things into account.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3d ago
I’m not disagreeing with any of that. I’m fully aware that the people I’m talking about start their instruments at a young age. That doesn’t mean they don’t still need a bunch more instruction and practice later on.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3d ago
If you haven't learned the violin by 12, you probably aren't going to learn it very well if at all.
Musicians can actually, you know, improve past what they’ve learned by age 12. That’s when serious musicians start grinding, learning new techniques, expanding their knowledge of theory, etc. My high school’s band program (of which I was a part) was small and pathetic compared to wealthier schools in our district, but a number of the musician kids I knew even then were spending a lot of time practicing to get good enough to potentially pursue it further into college and beyond. A disproportionate number of them, as I’m sure you can imagine, were Asian. Far from the Tiger Mom caricature — toiling away miserably at an instrument they hate in order to farm Extracurricular Points — most of them seemed to genuinely love the opportunity to get better at creating beautiful music.
I had a summer job between my sophomore and junior years of high school. Your classic fast food job, working mostly with dudes 5+ years my senior. After that, though, as I started to get more serious about extracurricular, my parents encouraged me to quit in order to focus on schoolwork, summer reading assignments, summer band practice, etc. I also similarly had a job — this time a restaurant job — for over a year during college, which directly and negatively impacted my ability to participate in many of the projects which would have been very helpful for preparing my professional development in my chosen major.
I agree that these jobs were enriching in the sense that they forced me to develop time management, a thick skin when being given negative feedback or undesirable tasks, and an exposure to a broad cross-section of society. I further agree that many of the individuals at whom you’re taking aim would certainly have benefited considerably in the same way. I’m just not convinced that these are strictly superior qualities to develop for the specific class of people who are genuine candidates for the Ivy League in 2025.
I think our society does still need a basically aristocratic class of people who are afforded the luxury of focusing purely on pursuits of the mind. The problem of ensuring that they’ve interfaced enough with the real world to prevent them from spiraling into the delusions of Pure Political Theory™️ is a very real one, but I’m not convinced that making them flip burgers or pick strawberries for a year is the optimal way to achieve that end.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3d ago
The things Asians are having their kids do aren't really things that help them grow or learn, they're just a box checking exercise to help them get into college.
What sorts of things do you have in mind? As far as I’m aware, such things might include, for example, practicing an instrument. This strikes me as a great example of growth and learning, even if the logic motivating it (at least on the part of the parents) might be mostly mercenary.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
4d ago
Whelp that's enough of TheMotte for me today.
Do you have an actual argument against his position? Or did it just make you feel icky?
I disagree with a great many of @WhiningCoil’s takes, and with the often bilious way he expresses them, but in this case his metaphor strikes me as a fairly reasonable (and certainly within the bounds of discussion) extension of the metaphor you yourself supplied.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5d ago
grunge gets coopted by corporate and refined and streamlined until we get Creed, who look soulless in comparison to The Strokes
What a weird description of Creed, of all the bands you could have picked. Their lyrics are very sincere (if not especially subtle) expressions of Scott Stapp’s Christian faith. They’re far more “soulful”, in terms of heartfelt expression of their true beliefs and emotions, than nearly any other band within their same broad genre. There are plenty of reasons not to like Creed (although I’m certainly a Creed fan), but lack of soulfulness is an inapt one.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9d ago
That’s not Eddie Murphy. It’s Nigerian-British actor Kayode Ewumi, portraying his character Roll Safe from the BBC series Hood Documentary.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11d ago
The people making these movies are not trying to impress you, the jaded 115+ IQ critical viewer who will pick apart the plot and complain about the action sequences. They’re much too busy optimizing their films for the international market, where their films will be eagerly lapped up by foreign audiences who’ll be watching them with subtitles. Those audiences are not especially concerned with the snappiness or verisimilitude of the dialogue, because they’re going to miss half of it anyway as they try to shift their eyes between the subtitles and the action taking place above them. (Or, if they’re watching a dubbed version instead, they’re just going to get localized, rewritten dialogue anyway, so the talent of the American scriptwriters is irrelevant.) These audiences want to see a bombastic series of visually-compelling sequences, populated by beautiful American celebrities; if they wanted to watch emotionally-stirring slice-of-life stories, they’d watch media made in their own countries.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11d ago
Okay, so, this is all a fairly decent summary, but all it demonstrates is that the Democrat-Republican split basically failed to map in any coherent way onto a liberal-conservative axis well into the 21st century. You’re correct that Bob Dole and Jerry Falwell would have been horrified if their daughter had been caught dating Dimebag Darrell Abbott; however, a good mainstream 90’s liberal like Phil Donahue would be equally horrified, because Dimebag was the kind of guy who proudly displayed Confederate imagery. (And, again, he’d be far more mortified by his daughter dating Phil Anselmo, especially after seeing this clip of Phil throwing a Roman and shouting “White power!”)
And hell, even if you want to stick to country music and you want to claim Jennings as a “liberal”, how about guys like Travis Tritt? An openly Republican Bush-voting conservative, who had long hair and a beard throughout the whole period you’re referring to? I don’t think Southern guys at the time would have thought Tritt looked out of place at a honky-tonk — let alone that he looked like a leftist academic.
Basically what I’m saying is that beards and long(ish) hair could pattern-match to “working-class Southern man who drinks a lot and doesn’t act like Ned Flanders, but who also doesn’t like faggots or egghead professors” just as easily as it could pattern-match to “ex-hippie with proper NPR-approved beliefs” during the time period OP referred to.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
12d ago
Once upon a time, having a beard or long hair meant Something, and usually meant being a leftist/liberal. Even by the early 2000s when I was in college, facial hair was still coded as an academic/liberal kind of thing. Outside the university, anyone who had either was definitely left-of-center.
This seems like total nonsense to me. Maybe it’s just because I grew up immersed in the metalhead subculture, but I can think of a massive number of guys with beards and long hair from the 90’s and 00’s who were not remotely associated with academics or leftist politics. The guys from Pantera, for example, were all extremely working-class Southerners, and their politics ranged from generic tits-and-beer centrism (the Abbott brothers) to generic Southern conservatism (Rex Brown) to basically White Nationalism (Phil Anselmo).
I agree that they signaled “not a middle-class guy with a full-time white-collar job”, but past that I don’t think there was much of a political connotation at that time, nor even a couple of decades before that. (Nobody would have mistaken Waylon Jennings for a college professor either.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
26d ago
For what it’s worth, I was fairly neurotic about this before my trip to Japan; my number one concern was to not be the careless foreigner causing offense or giving Americans (even more of) a bad name. I got over that anxiety pretty quickly once I was there; since almost nobody speaks English and I could barely communicate with anyone, and because I quickly intuited that they would not honestly express their offense even if I caused some, I determined that it was a fool’s errand to continue to micro-analyze every action of mine to try and figure out if it had offended someone. I just decided to avoid making any obvious faux pas, to keep my voice down as much as possible, and to otherwise just act naturally and count on the majority of people to interpret my actions in a spirit of good faith. Which they mostly seemed to do! (Although, again, they could have all found me unbearable, and I’d never know!)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
27d ago
And with getting an audience when one does so. It’s probably worse when you’re competing for the attention of media executives with their own politics.
I don’t think that this is honestly much of a factor; my understanding is that Jennings has been very consistent and very vocal about his politics for many years before anyone was considering him for a major media role, and before those specific beliefs were fashionable. The guy genuinely is an old-guard Gen-X progressive, and I don’t see any evidence that he’s either played up or played down those opinions based on any mercenary career concerns. Nor do those politics appear to have had much bearing on his selection for the Jeopardy! hosting gig; he got the role because he was already an extremely well-known institution on the show, and because he genuinely earned it over a long period of time. That’d have been true whether or not his political commentary was frequent or sparse. (Although obviously his specific opinions didn’t actively harm him, which wouldn’t have been true if they’d been significantly right-of-center instead.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
27d ago
I’ve been a colossal fan of Jeopardy! (a long-running American trivia game show, for those unfamiliar) for most of my life. My enthusiasm for the show skyrocketed during Ken Jennings’ historic 74-game winning streak in 2004. A geeky, witty, self-deprecating guy, Jennings’ prodigious knowledge was matched by his appealing personality, making him a TV phenomenon and boosting the popularity of the show.
After returning to various Jeopardy! exhibition tournaments, cementing his legendary status, he got into the running as one of the potential candidates to replace the show’s iconic decades-long host, Alex Trebek, whose cancer diagnosis had been made public and who was nearing retirement. In 2021, Jennings was officially announced as the new official host of Jeopardy!. He has breathed new life into the show; while Trebek’s personality was aloof and almost enigmatic, Jennings is warm and jocular, frequently engaging in witty repartee with the contestants and helping to bring out their personalities. Jennings also clearly knows a lot of the answers to the questions without needing to read off the cards, allowing him to make more informed split-second judging decisions about the acceptability of contestants’ answers, and allowing him to make certain edifying clarifications and to add cool fun facts about some answers. In other words, he’s the perfect host for the show, the perfect ambassador for the brand, and the perfect steward to carry the show for decades to come.
His politics are also very obnoxiously woke. I try not to use that word very often, considering it over-used and under-defined, but I think it fairly encapsulates his public statements on politics, which can easily be found by perusing his Twitter and Bluesky accounts and, apparently, by listening to his various podcast appearances. He has the typical smug, sanctimonious approach of a guy who was the smartest person he knew for his entire youth, and who was used to winning every argument he came across due to pure cognitive processing power and verbal agility. Political dunks phrased as though they’re so self-evidently obvious that only a total dolt would fail to agree with them. A deep and abiding belief that “supporting” trans people, abolishing borders, and ending “mass incarceration” are the urgent moral responsibility of every good-thinking person.
This commitment to progressive politics has bled over into Jeopardy! itself; since Jennings took over hosting, there has been a palpable increase in the number of questions related to black writers and activists, and a Jennings has made several on-air comments (mild, but obvious to those who are attuned to them) which reveal his own politics. It’s especially disheartening to know that a man with his depth of knowledge and clearly impressive mental faculties isn’t able to see the nuance around these issues, despite the ease with which the internet allows people with even a modicum of curiosity to expose themselves to the best arguments from the other side.
Now, I do hope/plan to meet Jennings some day; I have auditioned for Jeopardy! before, making it past the initial testing phase but never getting the call. I plan to continue to audition yearly until I eventually make it on the show, where I’m confident I could make a decent showing of myself and even win some real money. It crushes me to know that someone who’s something of a minor hero of mine would, upon learning my politics, want absolutely nothing to do with me, and may even not want me to be able to appear on the show, one of my life’s dreams. I try to studiously avoid hearing anything about Jennings’ politics, not wanting to further tarnish my warm feelings toward him. My single biggest fear about being doxxed, even above the effect it’d likely have on my personal and professional relationships, is the fear that it could prevent me from having my chance to compete on the show; I try not to think about whether Jennings would want me disqualified.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
28d ago
We're already systematically and explicitly oppressed based on group identity! That it's not naked slavery doesn't matter one lick.
This is the crux of our disagreement. I just think it’s manifestly untrue that white people are “systemically and explicitly oppressed” in any country on earth. There are at least some number of people who want us to be — I’ve even met a couple of them — but those people have vanishingly little power at this moment. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t point them out and oppose them. It just means that you seem like a catastrophizing propagandist when you claim that those people are already actively oppressing white people right now, in America.
I don’t believe that having one’s culture disrupted/dismantled is oppression. I want very badly for many cultures in the world to be dissolved, including some within the United States. I don’t think it’d be oppressive at all for a government to do so. Mainstream early-20th-century white culture was one of the better and more functional cultures on earth. I want to preserve many of the remaining remnants of it; however even if we wanted to bring it back, it has been irreparably disrupted by technological advancements and the globalization of the world economy. That’s not inherently a bad thing.
What’s specifically bad is that, in the case of the United States, it has been partially usurped by a vulgar, consciously-hateful, anti-human gutter culture. Jews are by no means the primary creators of this culture, although many individual Jews have been influential in promulgating it. (Just as many Jews were influential in promulgating important parts of the previous American cultural era, the one you like; look up how many of the compositions in the “Great American Songbook” were written by Jews.)
I’m more-or-less fine with governments using heavy-handed tactics, including targeted population replacement, to change aspects of the culture(s) over which they have control. I just also want them to do so in favor of changes that are better for humanity, rather than worse. Smashing ghetto black culture should be a priority for future U.S. policymakers; they’ve already (probably not intentionally) partially achieved this in some major cities by facilitating mass Mexican immigration to those cities; the Mexicans have displaced blacks, taking over their neighborhoods and replacing their culture with a new one. There are plenty of things about Mexican culture I find grating, but it’s pretty much a wholesale improvement over ghetto blacks. This is one way in which population/cultural replacement can be a good thing.
Obviously this doesn’t mean that all mass immigration is good, or that every culture on earth should be smashed, or that every immigrant group will similarly be an improvement on what was there before it arrived. It’s pretty obvious that Sweden was better before a bunch of Somalis and Syrians showed up. (It remains unclear whether the counterfactual world in which Sweden did not embrace mass immigration, but also its fertility rates continued to plummet unabated, would be sustainable as a long-term project.) However, if, say, the Swedish government had invited in a bunch of Japanese immigrants, I think Sweden would have benefited quite a bit from that in the long run. Some cultural/population displacements are an improvement, some are a lateral move, and some are a downgrade. Smashing Appalachian hillbilly culture would also be a salutary goal of a future American regime, and that would potentially involve replacing white hillbillies with some non-white ethnicity. Depending on which ethnicity, that could be a strict improvement!
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
28d ago
But saying "I don't really mean X" when there are plenty of people in your coalition who do mean X is indistinguishable from giving them cover and encouraging them even if you pinky swear that that isn't really what you mean.
Right, so, I acknowledge that this is by far the largest problem with Ignatiev’s beliefs. Again, I don’t think people should agree with him, I comprehensively reject his political project, and I want him to fail miserably and to die knowing that his entire life’s work was a pointless, cancerous failure.
There is a way for naïve white progressives — even ones who are as clearly maladjusted and full of spite as Noel Ignatiev — to be reintegrated back into a politically healthy discussion, but only once they have persuasively demonstrated that they understand the extent to which they’ve directly empowered the most worthless, destructive, spiteful, irredeemable elements of our society. Since that’s not happening any time soon, we can keep trying to crush the Ignatievs of the world. I just think we can do so without calling them liars and hypocrites.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
28d ago
Jews do not have anywhere near the level of explicit racial solidarity that whites had in, say, apartheid South Africa, or the Antebellum American South. Whatever covert influence some powerful Jews have to influence things in their favor at the expense of others, surely you can acknowledge that their actions (outside of, arguably, Israel) are of a qualitatively different form than, say, passing laws explicitly forbidding non-Jews from owning property, voting, patronizing the same businesses as Jews, etc. The worst thing a powerful Jew can do to white people in 21st-century America is write a mean book about us, produce a TV series where we’re the bad guys, and attempt (with intermittent success) to legislatively block border enforcement. Contrast that with the worst era of White Supremacy, in which a white person could own a black person as property. The two situations are not comparable.
This doesn’t mean I don’t think discriminating against white people is bad! It shouldn’t happen, it shouldn’t be tolerated, and it certainly shouldn’t be celebrated on grounds of retributive justice, balancing the cosmic scales, etc. I’m white, I’m planning to continue to be white, and I will do what I can to resist efforts to dispossess me or to dissolve cultural norms which are good for me and mine. But I don’t believe that Noel Ignatiev has the power to make me a second-class citizen, or that there’s any realistic American future in which white people are explicitly and systemically oppressed based on group identity. Whereas there are plenty of countries where it’s at least realistic to believe that Jews could suffer that fate again, as they have in the past. (This doesn’t give anyone, Jew or gentile, a blank check to tear my culture to shreds in order to obviate the hypothetical possibility of future pogroms, to the extent that any of them are doing so.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
28d ago
If I said: "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the Jewish race" do you think Ignatiev would regard that as anti-semitism? Obviously he would. So you just switch "White" from "Jew" in his own rhetoric and it goes from "moral good" to "crime against humanity."
He would simply point out that there is no example in history, with the exception of the few brief periods in which Israel has existed as an insular sovereign political entity, in which Jewish people have had the power to openly privilege themselves as a dominant racial group at the expense of other groups. Whereas there was a period of several centuries wherein white people — conscious of their whiteness and the way it made them different/better than other people — had both the means and the willpower to travel around the world establishing states in which they were made the supreme/privileged race and others were treated as less-than as a result. And, Ignatiev would argue, this power differential favoring white people has continued to the present day. He would argue that Jewish people simply lack the concentrated power and the racial solidarity to place themselves in a position of supremacy over white people even if they wanted to.
Therefore, there is a context around the claim that “Jewishness must be abolished” — namely, that such a project has been actively attempted multiple times within fairly recent history and had demonstrably catastrophic results for Jewish individuals — that simply doesn’t exist (at this time) around the superficially-similar claim that “whiteness must be abolished.” Even if there were some not-insignificant number of powerful people working together to abolish whiteness, the methods they would realistically have at their disposal would not look anything like large-scale pogroms or the Holocaust or whatnot. White people do in fact still have the lion’s share of the money, the power, the resources, the access to nice things and prestigious employment, etc. Their enemies are forced to resort to more long-term abstract tactics such as tipping demographics through facilitation of mass immigration — something which affects countries on a long time scale, but doesn’t actually produce significantly negative impacts on the quality-of-life of individual white people in the present.
Now, of course, this is where you and I both disagree strongly with Ignatiev, given that we recognize that some ethnic groups actually are quite bad on average and have the ability to introduce a lot of pretty substantial negative externalities in a pretty short period of time when given any power/leeway. That being said, I would hope you can acknowledge that none of those externalities, as of yet, have risen to anywhere near a level of badness comparable to racial chattel slavery, industrial-scale pogroms, apartheid, etc. (You may believe that things could get that bad for a significant number of white people within our lifetimes. I think the probability of this is low but that it’s worth taking at least some basic measures to guard against. Ignatiev believes such an outcome is totally implausible, and that none of his political allies would ever dream of doing something like this even if they could.)
And again, as far as I call tell Ignatiev does believe that he personally benefits from a system of white supremacy. Unlike you, he doesn’t appear to just see himself as “white-passing, but exempt from all the really bad criticisms of white people because he’s Jewish.” He, like most people who are honest about it, recognizes that he’s white in every way that counts, and that this has benefited him tangibly. (Police officers are less likely to apply a heightened scrutiny to him upon clocking him visually. Service staff are more likely to treat him deferentially rather than warily. And so on and so forth.)
Most people, whose “Jewdars” are quite weak, would probably have no idea Ignatiev is Jewish unless they asked him, or unless they happened to have a reason to look up his early life on Wikipedia. Therefore, if Ignatiev does genuinely believe that a visibly white/European phenotype confers material advantages in this country, then he is advocating stripping himself of those advantages. I don’t think he sees “abolishing whiteness” as being in his cynical self-interest, in the way that Ben Shapiro sees pro-Jewishness as in his self-interest. Again, Ignatiev does not seem to have any affinity with the Jewish community, does not seem to wish to avail himself of protection within it while whiteness is being abolished, and opposes the continued existence of an Israeli state where Jews could escape to if they fall afoul of “anti-white” activity.
You, Hoffmeister, accuse me of being an equal-offender racist- racist against everyone
I have never called you a “racist”, and I don’t ever unironically use that word. What I do believe is that your identity commitments are too parochial. That you’re thinking too small by focusing on the centrality and purity of European-derived people only. That you’re unnecessarily excluding millions, potentially billions, of valuable contributors to the human race, because you’re too micro-focused on reifying whiteness.
It's telling then that you are defensive of Ignatiev who defends Black Identity on the basis that it musters resistance to White Identity. So his real position is the precise opposite of what you imagine. He supports using Black Identity as a tool to undermine White Identity
Does he? Genuinely, are there specific passages of his writing in which he does so? I’m not aware of any, although I’m far from a connoisseur of his work. If you have evidence of this it would likely change my assessment of him considerably.
Oh good. The worst parts of the books so far have l been Sanderson’s various pathetic attempts at insult humor, which he apparently considers the height of wit, and that entire mini-arc brought out the nadir of it.
More options
Context Copy link