JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
You combine two things "lose money just to piss off people you hate" but this is wrong. Their intent wasn't to lose money. Their intent was to piss of the deplorables. Logically, they should have known by now it'll lose them money, because it already happened many times, but that's me trying to model what they should be thinking and not actually their thinking. They might have thought it'll be ok or that the "modern audience" will finally show up with piles of cash, or that their marketing is all-powerful, or they just didn't care and lived in denial. The point is they didn't have to have explicit intent to lose the money in order for their actions to lead to that. You can call it "bad bet", sure, but I think it's clear their primary motivations can be found elsewhere.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
My mind says to me what you are saying is making total sense. But my eyes witness the major culture producers doing exactly that for years now. So I have no choice other than to believe the evidence in front of my eyes - yes, they would sacrifice making a profit to the ideas of xe/xir writer about what the audience really should be liking. Or, alternatively, they think their marketing power is so great the can just force anything through - but enough failures by now happened that should have made it evident to them it's not the case. Yet, they persist - so, however illogical it sounds, there's no other way but to accept that's what they are doing.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
I care when people say that whites should be discriminated against or disadvantaged, because I'm white.
And so should you. That's why "no discrimination against any group for any quality" is the right answer. The law should be blind to arbitrary class categories.
The actual, current black community, or whoever they choose or designate from among that community.
Why do you think such a "community" exists? So far there's no any indication of it. Black separatists do exist, but they are tiny and vast majority of black people has no idea who they are and if they do, they do not support them. If there would be a unified black community that would show interest in separatism, there could be some discussion about it, but what's the point of discussing making deals with entities that are entirely imaginary?
No one of any race has to go there, at all, ever.
So why anybody would? Why they don't just stay right where they are and keep demanding reparations from the US? What is going to stop them?
That would be for them to sort out.
What do you mean by "them"? The US just declares on 1.1.XXXX the US laws stop working in Atlanta? That's not what any lawful framework in the US could ever allow. And I don't see how it wouldn't just invite Sinaloa cartel (or anybody else quick on their feet) to capture the territory by force and not give a whistle about your racist paradise plans at all?
We check goods at the border and confiscate contraband.
You know how well it works on Mexican border, where the counterparty is the actual functioning government that kinda wants to help us with that? Now imagine how well it would work when the government on the other side actually actively wants it not to happen. You will confiscate exactly nothing and you will have zero control over it.
The rest of your questions seem to be predicated on people being forced to live in such a zone
If any of the populated area is turned into the racist paradise, the people living there would be forced to either live there or lose their homes, jobs, social environments etc. Why would they agree to that? Say, why Oprah would want to live in this racist paradise enclave, if she's already a billionaire in America? I think she'd certainly prefer keep living in America - as she does. If there would be any desire on the part of the black Americans to live in something like that, black separatism wouldn't be a political nonstarter. Yet, it is.
Moreover, why limit ourselves to American blacks? There are millions of people who already enjoy this deal - living in a places where US does not control it, and doing whatever they want there, mostly. Yet, we are witnessing millions of them, day after day, at great personal expense and risk, to try to get into America and stay there. Why do you think black Americans - who already enjoy full citizenship right, full access to welfare services, significant representation in all power structures and undying admiration of at least one powerful political movement - would want a worse deal than Haitian blacks want? I see no evidence and no logical reason why they would, and this makes this whole scheme doomed and useless.
so you need to give them a demonstration of good faith,
How do you know they'd take it as a demonstration of good faith? I don't see any indication from them that they would. Again, black separatism is not exactly popular, and if people understood what it actually means - e.g. losing all access to all the welfare state goodies, US citizen benefits, etc. - it's be even less popular. If they think US is built mostly by their ancestors (let's no argue how true it is but assume that's what they think) but they aren't getting their fair share of it, how giving them a soon-to-be-shithole area and absolving ourselves of any responsibility of what happens there would sound like a good deal? They want a fair share of everything, not some scraps that somebody decided to throw to them and lock them out of the rest.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
OK, I can't really talk about the hippy times, I wasn't even born yet then. But given by how many leftists terrorists (Weather Underground, RAF, etc.) existed at that time or immediately after, hippies probably weren't exclusively dominating the leftist mainstream. But those times are long gone, and the hippies are nowhere to be seen, and probably already have been denounced as a racist, cisheteropatriarchal movement (I don't know but it sounds so on brand I am pretty sure somebody already wrote a paper on that).
even SJers very rarely intend massacre as an end
I don't know if they want to massacre their opponents personally, but they are surely A-OK with somebody else doing the job. They are willing to support pretty much any organization that would deploy violence against Western traditional targets or anybody they consider "bad people".
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Blacks will never accept being an underclass any more than whites would,
True, and that's why the only solution is to abandon the framework where the measure of equality is the equality of statistical outcomes between races (or any other large population-wide categories, for that matter). This framework is not something that is inevitable and it's not something that is necessary. I don't care how many people who have the same eye color as me and the same nose length as me are rich and how many are poor. I care if I'm rich or poor, I care about whether my family and my friends are rich or poor. I care about whether I could be prevented from being richer or made poorer by unjust means. But wide-area statistical frameworks are meaningless to me - unless they are made meaningful by adopting them as political and cultural framework that is dominant in the society. There's no inherent reason why US should have adopted the racial framework. To be an "underclass" you should first be a "class", and "classes" are entirely arbitrary. Stop obsessing about them and the problem will be gone.
give blacks an area that they control completely
Who are "they"? Any man that can prove a drop of African blood? That's much more people than you think. What happens to other people living there, if they don't want to live in the racist paradise? What does it mean "control completely" - does it secede from the US? What happens to people that want to keep living in the US and keep being US citizens and keep having US laws? I don't see why for example a black professor at local university would suddenly want to subject himself to a regime that may not be able to sustain any universities at all. Doesn't he have any rights?
Grant this area leave to write its own laws as it sees fit
Areas can't write laws. People write laws. Who will be choosing these people? Will it be mass combat or lottery or how are you planning to choose those people? What if there would be 10 groups of people writing ten competing sets of laws - which group is the real one that gets the full control? How this control would be enforced - will US army and police participate if armed conflict happens? Will it blockade the area if there would be threat of violence spreading out? What about if they decide to build a giant meth factory and ship it to the US? Or even much worse, a giant generic drugs factory, without respecting any US drug patents? Will there be a complete trade embargo?
Then declare that outside this zone, racism has been solved. Blacks get the exact same legal status as everyone else
They already have this status, why we need the racist paradise to achieve what we already have?
No AA, no hate crime laws, no special privileges, we implement pure colorblind enforcement of the letter of the law.
Again, we can do it right now - why we need the racist paradise? What if the blacks don't want to live in the racist paradise, but want to keep living in New York and California, only better than they live now? I'm not sure what exactly having the racist paradise zone achieves. If you have a mechanism that can stop the racial grievances, I don't see why you can't use it without that, and if you don't have that mechanism, what did you achieve then?
I think he's right that the colorblind 90s aren't coming back
The past is never coming back, but we're coming into the future, and it can be made better than the present, if there's a will.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I remember I used to guzzle coca cola like crazy, I just liked the taste so much. Especially when working, I had a cola glass or can next to me all the time and took a sip every minute or so. Then my doctor said to me my blood tests show high sugar, and I have diabetics in the family, so I got a bit scared. So I stopped it completely. There were some cravings for a while, but fortunately I am very caffeine resistant, so it was mostly about the sugar thing. In a couple of month is subsided, and now the taste feels completely disgusting for me, I'd much rather drink pure water than that. I still have a bit of a habit of sipping while working, but it's mostly either water or unsugared tea. I tried carbonated sugarless drinks but their fizziness annoys me for some reason.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
American blacks go their own way,
Go their own way where? Liberia? I don't see them doing that voluntarily, why would they go to some shithole, they are as American as everybody else (and more than myself, a relatively fresh immigrant, for example). Or just ethnically purge Atlanta and ban whites from every coming in there? Why Atlanta then and not New York or Santa Monica? How that's supposed to work without destroying every principle of American society? I mean sure, if you imagined you are building a simulation from scratch, you could add a rule "black and whites live separately" and see if it works. But this simulation has already been running for a while, and I can't even begin to think that "their own way" would mean in this context. What if they think their own way is keep living in America, just as they did - does it mean whites have to get out?
Black-white conflict will never cease in this country so long as blacks continue to lag so far behind other races
I don't think it's true. A lot of countries have ethnically heterogeneous population, and a lot of countries have a lot of issues and concerns connected to that. But nowhere (at least not among developed countries) it's as central to literally everything as in America. And it is getting worse. Which also, paradoxically, means it is possible for it to be better - because it has been. And it has been deliberately made worse, for very practical partisan political reasons. If Americans, as a culture, find in themselves to sacrifice their partisan interests to their common culture interests, if they still want to make it better and not just to win over the other team, no matter the cost - it is possible for it to be better. Will it be all ok and nice? No. Shit's probably will be going on for decades, and there would be low-key racism and low-key hatred for a long time. But it can be much better than it is now, and the only thing that is really necessary if for people to want to make it better.
unilateral disarmament by blacks, despite no structural changes that could plausibly lead to a future favorable outcome for them
The only way there could be "future favorable outcome for them" is a racist regime actively (and by our current standards, absolutely outrageously) discriminating against people who are not them. Nothing less would make a dent. Even if that were possible, it may persist for one generation, while people who saw the reverse regime are still alive and still feel guilty for it. The next generation would not feel this guilt. They will inevitably demand justice. And then what? How do you give them justice? The only way you know?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
If people fail to empathize with themselves, projected into the past, how can they possibly empathise with other people?
The left's "empathy" project has never been unlimited and all-encompassing. Only the good people (read the correct newspapers to learn who those are today) deserve empathy, and the bad people deserve nothing but hate. The left can be - and often is - horrendously vicious to those that are considered bad people. And that matters absolutely nothing that they may have held the same ideas or were members of the same movement in the past. Once they are declared the bad people, they are outside the empathy circle, and it is very, very dark on the left outside that circle. Is not the "excess" of empathy, it is very carefully directed allocation of it, deployed along very ideological guidelines.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
In their minds, white people spent 400 years playing the racial identity politics game and cheating egregiously at it, and then the second blacks had a window where they could have attained parity (let alone the upper hand) whites decided that it was no longer okay to see race, that game is over with, we should just let bygones be bygones.
OK, I could have a number of objections to this description, but let's say it's mostly accurate. What's the alternative? Have 400 years of anti-white racism? Including against whites which had zero part in playing that game - either because they didn't have access to the benefits of the game, which weren't ever spread equally, as they aren't even in racially homogeneous societies, or because - which is very frequent case in America - their ancestors weren't even in America when the game has been played. Yet, somehow they need not to suffer for the sins of some dead people that share the skin hue with them? If not 400, how many years of racism is enough? How many years of racism would not create a completely broken culture integrating this racism and depending on it? How and who would decide that this is the moment we're even and now we can stop being racist to either side?
Let's look at human history. How the wars end? Sometimes they never do, but sometimes it happens. Do the warring sides carefully calculate who hurt whom, how many times, and hurt the other side back until the account is at precisely zero? Or do the decide, one day, that we should stop hurting each other, and whatever grievances we had in store, we are not going to hurt each other over them anymore? I think that's the only way to end a war. It may not please everyone, but I see no other way.
Let's say you say - that's not enough. For the fact that black businesses were refused loans at the racist times, nobody now can ever refuse a loan to a black-owned business. Would it make black businessmen more successful? I don't think so. First of all, any shrewd business would just hire a black person to do nothing but serve as a token - and that's not going to benefit genuine black-owned businesses and also would put a giant asterisk next to the name of every prominent black businessman. Second, banks either find a way to refuse loans they don't want to give, or will be forced to spread the risk - raising interest rates to everyone, and the weakest businesses would be those who will be hurt. Third, criminals sure will be attracted by the prospect of guaranteed loans, and honest businessmen will have trouble competing with crooks, since the banks would be forbidden from distinguishing between them, leaving to eventual washing out of honest business. So, did we improve the situation or did we make it worse?
Just stopping racism may be not satisfactory to many, but I don't see any way of stopping racism outside of stopping it. All other ways will just be hurting a lot of people and not improving anything.
JarJarJedi
7d ago
It's way beyond "the abuses". It's a complete paradigmatic collapse. The paradigm that there exist some institutions that are ultimately designed to work for our benefit, and while specific people are fallible and corruptible, in general this system is built for the benefit of the people, is controllable by the people and has people's best interests at heart - is dead. The new paradigm is that this system is a self-interested parasite, which will consume any resource the people allow it to, but will act in ways that do not have much to do with the benefit of the people and is absolutely not controllable and absolutely opaque and violently resistant to any attempt to control it. That's how "people" would - and should - view it now. So if you want to deliver some message that people "need" to do this and that, then this message can not be delivered within the framework of the new paradigm and not be received with as much trust as a message from Nigerian prince telling you that you "need" to send him some money to come into your inheritance rights.
Maybe the wolf is there, maybe it's not. I am certainly not qualified to judge that question. What I know though that this boy - and his family, who conveniently made billions on mandatory wolf awareness trainings - is not going to be the input for my decisions on these question. If anything, I'd probably lean towards doing the opposite of what he's crying about.
JarJarJedi
8d ago
Maybe it is "big deal", maybe not. That can be debated. But certainly the guys who lied to us for years lost the right to be a source in the decision how exactly big. Their informational quality is negative now.
And sure, "public health officials" bear the majority of the blame. But I don't remember a mass movement of rank-and-file to protest the abuses either. I do remember a lot of "racism is a national health issue" but not a lot of "lying, fraud and tyranny is a national health issue". I'm not saying there weren't dissidents - there were - but most of the lower levels enthusiastically enforced whatever they were told to enforce and pushed whatever they were told to push. So, it's not just some lone officials on top that need to account for that.
JarJarJedi
8d ago
I think the problem is exactly the officials that lied, cheated, stole, oppressed and brutalized the public for several years, with zero consequences, zero accountability and not even as much as mealy-mouthed apology. They keep claiming they did everything right, and the public was the ones too stupid to understand why it's all for their own good. I completely and totally understand people not believing a word that comes out of the mouths of anybody who is in any way connected to this establishment ever again. They didn't just use up their credibility, they piled it up, made a huge bonfire, and when that burned, they borrowed some, and set it on fire too. Their credibility is essentially in the same position as US Treasury now - trillions in debt and keeping digging down without any possible hope of ever reversing not even the value, not even the first, but all the higher level derivatives - they are all trending down. It's the exponential credibility collapse and still, you claim some rural dude that is now hesitant to get the 13th booster is the main problem that should be addressed. Nope, he is not. The fuckers who led us to this point are, and they are still largely in charge.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
Biden personally barely remembers who Netanyahu is, and cares even less. But his team mostly hates Israel anyway, much more than they can afford to show in public. They were committing minor betrayals of Israel constantly, leaking any valuable info that gets into their hands, knowing that Israel can not afford to cut off the US and act fully independently. The reverse side of it is that when you know the other side hates your guts whatever you do, but can't show it, it also provides a certain measure of freedom.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
Looks like Israel decided finally the current situation is intolerable, and since there was no chance Nasrallah would do anything to change it (after spending so many years leading to exactly this outcome) there was no value anymore in keeping him alive. There's no hope for somehow achieving 1701 peacefully, so there's nothing to wait for.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
The second part are solitary cases, which do exist, but if we're talking about wide communities, these are probably not typical. Nutcases like that can be found around pretty much every anti-civilization cause, from ecoterrorism to jihad. But I don't think they are the core of Hezbollah's support.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
I'd assume the ones in Britain are predominantly relatively recent arrivals, so they still communicate in their native tongues.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
And it was all to try to save mom-and-pop businesses
Or, you know, to steal half a trillion dollars. At least. Probably more.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
"It also was looking more like a wolf than you think it was" is not very useful when you cried wolf for 2 years. That account is overdrawn so deeply that it doesn't matter anymore how much was in it initially.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
You are forgetting the lockdown sex parties. That was the worst of it. People were so scared top health officials had to secretly rent the hotel rooms “just be naked with friends”. Can you imagine?
JarJarJedi
9d ago
Playing along with "don't go to crowded pubs" and playing along with "you are going to be arrested if you go alone to an empty beach, but please please go to a massive protest where people around you scream in your face for hours" is playing two entirely different games.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
It's nice to meet an optimist. Unfortunately, I can not concur. I am still seeing a lot of people wearing masks in public, and I am sure the establishment and the press are capable of creating a panic that would easily provide democratic supermajority for virtually any measure short of mass executions, if they want to. My only solace is that the elections are in 2 months and they don't have enough time already to use it (and also probably don't need it really as they already have passed all the laws they needed the last time) so there's no real incentive to do it again right now.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
You may not have the choice. I mean, would you be willing to go to jail (where they would forcefully strap underwear to your face, and beat you up if you resist - probably likely beat you up anyway just in case) just to be able to briefly walk in a park? Would you be willing to lose your job and cease all in-person contact with 99.999% of human population, give up all your hobbies, your social life, your cultural life, everything? What if you need to use actual medical services or help your loved one to use them, and wearing underwear on your face is the only way to do it? It's really hard to stay sane when everybody around you is crazy.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
Or a money mule who is exploiting somebody else's card for a small fee.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
I'd expect most of the organic ones being in Arabic, and if there's something in English it's probably run by some Iranian IRGC officer.
I personally find it very unfortunate that it seems like in US political language, there's no way to express what you want to express except by using racial language, even when it's perfectly clear it's not about race but about culture and ideals. And using the racial language presents obvious problems - if Clarence Thomas is "white", while he's also visibly "black", it is easy to accuse him of being un-genuine or "traitor" or somehow abnormal.
More options
Context Copy link