@Lykurg's banner p


We're all living in Amerika

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 December 29 10:51:01 UTC

Hello back frens

Verified Email


User ID: 2022


We're all living in Amerika

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 December 29 10:51:01 UTC


Hello back frens


User ID: 2022

Verified Email

or some variety of psychopath

Can you say more about what those guys were like? Also, with all these violent dudes around, were you ever afraid of someone on your side?

There is but it's not particularly relevant to this discussion

I wasnt particularly disagreeing with you; I genuinely would like to know what you think is in there.

secular progressivism with at least two-scoops of Marx and Hegel

How much do you know of Hegel? My impression is that while he caused a lot of brainrot, you are closer to his object-level positions than to Hobbses.

Also Holy thread necromancy Batman.

Im here so rarely now, I pick out the pearls.

If left and right are different versions of enlightenment philosophy, this leaves open the possibility of an opposition from outside the enlightenment. But you dont seem to think theres anything in that box. Anytime you argue that someone is not a real rightist, they are placed firmly in the "left" box. Why do you think that is?

The joke is saying theres this opinion that conservatives have thats getting censored, and they dont want to admit that opinion. Getting censored applies to all social conservatism pretty evenly. Progressives accusing conservatives of secretly holding some opinion can apply to all of it, but applies most commonly to race. The last line is saying that we should have enough information now to know which one was meant. So the author thinks only one thing meets the previous conditions sufficiently. And race meets them the most, so it can only be that.

Iā€™m reminded of a tweet:

[Image not reproduced in comment]

If youre familiar with brain-teasers, theres a certain gimmick where a puzzle isnt uniquely solvable until you get told that it is, usually by someone being said to know something or through a subtle use of the definite article. The joke in the tweet has this, too. It could be any sort of social conservatism, until the last line tells you its about race.

Acknowledging that some parents are bad and need to be treated differently from other parents is in no way at odds with saying parents should generally be trusted to make good decisions for their children. It's just that every rule has exceptions.

And how do we decide if the parents are bad in any given case? On this issue, the progressive answer seems to be "if the child says so". That is pretty close to just letting the child make the decisions in the first place. You cant really claim to agree that "parents should make the decisions in most cases", if you support overriding this default at the childs asking.

In the vast majority of cases, everyone involved agrees what to do. Saying "well in those cases we let the parents decide" does not count as parents deciding most of the time.

This is a great question, and most of the disagreement youre getting is just insisting on the Enlightenments self-presentation with little argument. Sad.

That said, I dont think "We know how to solve all our problems." is a plausible candidate. First its a very simple idea, thats easy for lots of people to stumble upon in lots of situations. Secondly, confidence can grow quickly, and shrink quickly, too. So if that was what the enlightenment was about, it would not be a historical trend with a definite starting point, it would be something like "Cannibalism in crisis" or "Wars of succession" that pops up occasionally and peters out again.

I think that, at least as far as politics is concerned, a good summary of the Enlightenment is Cartesian dualism. It leads to things like the original position, our definition of authentic desire, people apparently appearing ex nihilo as fully formed adults, "What if you had been born an X", and most of the other driving arguments of "progress".

I think that for the most part, people interpret votecounts as "people want to see stuff like this", even if it doesnt effect visibility anymore. And I think this interpretation is correct, in the sense that most people vote like this, too. If you use your votes differently, youre propably not sending the signals you want.

Having just returned after a while, I notice that theres no easy way to find recent quality contributions posts from the front page. I know to look on reddit, but maybe we would want them more prominent for new users?

The higher IQ applies to the ashkenazim and is thought to be from selection in the late middle ages and after, but the pattern of concentrating in certain elite professions and the majority getting mad about it applies to jews much more generally, and so is presumably not explained by it.

So there is no dissonance in people's minds.

I meant within german progressives, or the overall coalition. As in, turkish opinions on the treatment of the armenians is something progressives would have a problem with, but is not immediately relevant here and now, so absent the loyalty conflict they could have ignored it.

So I thought the Armenian is just a collision without deeper meaning, the sort of dissonance that all ideologies have to paper over occasionally. But because the Turkey in the loop not only provides resources for the activism in Europe but still actively sets the agenda, the Germans use it as an indicator of loyalty in their conflict with Turkey, which is the actual problem. I knew euroturks have their nationalist shibboleths that they care about; I didnt notice they were still so responsive to the situation in Turkey. Am I understanding you right?

From the austrian end myself, it doesnt feel like the discourse around the turks has changed much since the 2000s. I still do have the impression that we match them into the minority pattern in some sense. Admittedly it rare to meet someone whos very serious about this without being selected for it. Certainly poking at the associated PC taboos is much less serious then with the jews. With the turks, someone "correcting" you might imply that he knows we just have to pretend to believe this - but it still is there. I can see though how that difference might look much smaller on our end then the receiving one.

The model of the second kind was indeed a big part of what I had in mind. I wasnt aware of the changes. Around when would you say this happened, and how are the supporting organisations that dont have to take a position doing? I would love some more details; so far this sounds to me more like an accidental hiccough than the model not fitting at all.

When the ADL puts enormous pressure at the highest levels of power to "Stop Hate", is that progressivism masquerading as ethnic power, or is it ethnic power masquerading as progressive morality?

But I think you will agree that the ADL didnt get its power from "fierce advocacy". The advocacy and the being-persuaded-by-it are fake. My point is that "doing identity politics" suggests a pretty specific plan of action: You want to be very loud about how your group is treated badly, maybe have an organisation dedicated to that, make an ethnic voting block, etc. But those parts are kayfabe, they dont actually make you win. Now, maybe you mean something else by it, but if so its pretty prone to misunderstandings, because I still cant tell what it would be after rereading your comments with the assumption that its there.

It's simple- look at the political and cultural power other ethnic groups enjoy by organizing along ethnic lines and fiercely advocating for their group.

I think in the modern context this success is almost entirely down to the authorities humoring them. US blacks are not such a threat that the government has to make all these concessions to them, they could absolutely turn it off if they wanted to. China does that sort of thing all the time. The "concessions" are things the elites already wanted to do. I mean, a lot of those organisations doing the "fierce advocacy" arent even run by black people. Their ethnic power is a kayfabe for progressives.

My point is just, people think the bundle leads to a certain kind of politics, and heres an example where it very much didnt.

What do you actually hope to get from a right that embraces white identity? I understand that DR often think mainstream conservatives just dont take anti-white progressives seriously enough, but if e.g. Rufo just maximally succeded, what do you think would be missing?

Sorry if this wasnt clear, Im austrian. But I think its somewhat surprising you dont hear about them in america as well. You certainly heard about the "syrian" refugees, and I would guess youre at least aware that the turks are a topic here?

This is very much in accordance with how average German, British or Hungarian liberal will be obsessed with black people but ignore or even just dislike the (sometimes much larger) Turkish Arab or Albanian populations in their midst.

The turks do have a kind of minority politics. Its a lot less intense than the US with blacks, but they have their highly credentialed representatives that get a good bit of stage time and diversity-grants, and theyre a topic in political discussion. The mindset you describe exists and is something you might filter into as a visitor from anglostan, but its pretty niche. So I dont think the atlantic fully explains the situation with the gypsies.

I don't think "shared characteristics of Minorities" dominate the discussion outside of ethnonationalist or HBD circles.

I think many progressives would say that blacks and hispanics being poor, uneducated, and having bad relations with the police causes the kind of politics they have in the US, and potentially extend this schema to other groups.

Yes, but its a thing far-lefties write about and thats kind of it. Can you remember a polititian being accused of Antiziganismus by a relevant opponent or a major newspaper? Now compare antisemitism, racism vs MENA.

Isnt it weird how you never hear about the gypsies? They sure look like they count as a capital-M Minority: Very poor, very uneducated, very bad relations to the police, they even were in the Nazi camps. But in political discourse they might as well not exist. Im vaguely aware that our eastern neighbors have more of them and its more of a topic there, but this doesnt make it to me either. I just searched for it and best I found is this, from 2020. Theres sightly more in german, but compared to the media volume dedicated to telling me that Orban is mean to the gays, it might as well not exist. While I was at it I also looked for the "list of gypsies that made important contributions to science", and that actually doesnt exist. The only thing that remotely looks like a hit is this, which has three people on it: one with a possible nth-generation ancestor, and two that google isnt even sure exist.

I find this interesting as a point of comparison. Theres lots of people out there of even opposing ideologies giving mechanistic explanations of how the shared characteristics of Minorities lead to the political discourse around them, and then heres a case where it just didnt.

Every people has a need for self-justification: "why do we rule this land and not you?"

"Because we started a city in a swamp with a bunch of bandits, and then raided our neighbors for wifes." - this is not quite "because we won", but it sure is getting there. Also this is coming from the greatest state of ancient europe that everyone else is legitimating themselves from.

EDIT: Actually, this is another thing that goes against the theory: All the europeans who claimed a right deriving from the roman conquerers, as opposed to "We lived here so long" - most of them until the age of nationalism, and a few persisting.

The spartans did not write much, so we cant be sure what they thought, but I think they had a similar mentality. Certainly the part where they officially remained at war with the helots would suggest it.

I dont know where I got this from, but: "Straussian reading is pretending everyone smart has always been a liberal".

Living out one's ideals is a costly signal of sincerity, and achieving success and happiness by doing so is the least refutable argument. This is a big reason why religion is so persistent despite sounding batshit crazy from the outside ā€” and I say this as a religious person.

Is it? AFAIK religion is negatively correlated with most measures of success before you correct for income and education and such. Now, it might be that those corrections are necessary to find the true causal effect, but its clearly not just "follow what the successful people are doing" any more.

In fact I think this works against religion. Far more people avoid religion because its associated with low-status people then would ever care about whats objectively reasonable.

The philosophy may still be sound, we don't judge the art by the artist

An important part of the philosophy here is the claim that you can improve rationality in a domain-general way. That you could learn to avoid e.g. motivated reasoning in a way that would work on all topics simultanuously, so that your preformance in even the weakest field that a critic might adversarially pick will be ok (and that he has done this, obviously). Claiming to have a metabolic defect that would be lethal in the ancestral environment is strong evidence against that.