Sunshine
1d ago
that the Democrats support illegal immigrant child slavery on drug farms?
Is this controversial? The Democrats support having lots of illegal immigrants working at below market rates by violating labor laws. I don't think many mainstream Democrats would deny it, although they would probably phrase it differently. That naturally includes underaged workers.
It's the logical conclusion of having a large population of undocumented people. I think pretty much every Democratic politician who has any interest in illegal immigrants is at least aware that it's happening. Presented with a choice between allowing them to operate without the protection of labor laws or getting law enforcement involved and likely getting them deported, they are choosing the former in full knowledge of the consequences of that choice because they think it's the option that causes less harm.
Have any Democrats spoken up about the dozen antifa who organized that pathetic mass murder attempt on ICE agents?
This is a poor comparison. AOC is an elected official, the perpetrators of the "pathetic mass murder attempt" are a handful of deranged crooks.
Sunshine
3d ago
I'll speak for the Irish famine: It was an act of nature. There is ample documentary evidence of the British government taking measures to alleviate the problem, such as repealing the Corn Laws to make food imports cheaper and arranging for large quantities of cheap cornmeal to be shipped from America and sold in Ireland at below market rates. These measures were taken at great political cost. Sir Robert Peel had to resign as PM after repealing the Corn Laws (they called him Sir Robert Repeal, no I'm not joking).
The potato blight was a Europe-wide phenomenon and Irish agriculture was notoriously backwards and over-reliant on the potato harvest. The fact that there was a famine is not surprising and I see no reason to blame the British. Contrary to popular belief, Ireland was a net food importer throughout the famine. This is in stark contrast to Ukraine during the Holodomor.
Sunshine
4d ago
Fair enough. I was knowingly putting a toe over the line to make a point, and I know I don't like it when other people break the rules just because they think they can get away with it. I have amended my call-out to attack arguments rather than people.
Sunshine
4d ago
Coco is about a living human exploring the world of the dead. I would argue that it fits the pattern. You just have to remove the requirement that the fish-out-of-water character be nonhuman.
Apply the same low bar consistently. Let people have an actual conversation with actual disagreement.
I am not aware of any banned person who was trying to have an actual conversation with actual disagreement. People mainly get banned for being obvious bad faith trolls who are just here to deliver drive-by insults and then vanish without making any arguments for their position.
Sure, there are some people who do that and don't get banned, but that's not quite the same thing, is it? I don't think it's so terrible to err on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt. There are few enough posts here that tolerating a few more won't take away attention from anyone more deserving.
And for the record, I would be willing to bet that >75% of this forum is non-antisemetic (is there a word for that?) and a commanding majority support Israel over its various Muslim rivals. There are a few antisemites lurking about darkly Implying Things, but much like the leftists they tend to scurry away when you shine a spotlight on them rather than actually stand and fight.
It is not a consensus opinion that smothers dissent, it's the opposite. It's an embattled minority opinion that no one is willing to stand up and openly defend. You don't have to tiptoe around anything.
Here, watch: I think antisemetism is stupid. Much like a primitive savage who thinks thunder is caused by an angry god, many people anthropomorphize the impersonal forces of politics and economics. When confronted with a phenomenon one doesn't understand, one might assume it must be caused by a cabal of scheming humans. But cabals of scheming humans are rare, and the idea that an entire ethnic group is carrying out a conspiracy is preposterous. Keeping a secret on that scale is not possible, and the suggestion that such a conspiracy exists is reflective of a lack of understanding of the limits of large organizations more than anything.
I've called you out, antisemites of the Motte! I've dismissed your beliefs as mere superstition! Show me how fearsome and numerous you are! Dogpile me into oblivion!
I don't think the extra context actually does change the meaning at all. I'll apply some simplification to distill the meaning of the full paragraph:
This worldview would seem to conflict with HBD theories.
Summary: The "narrative" (as you put it) conflicts with HBD because...
Indeed, one would have to conclude that whites are an inferior race. Guatemalans in their "third-world s***hole" don't just sit around despairing, they cross multiple borders and look for work in a country where they can't even speak the language, while white men who got laid off in their rust-belt factory towns twiddle their thumbs and inject fentanyl, unable to compete with said Guatemalans.
Summary: HBD would require you to see whites as an inferior race...
They see whites like people have long seen the American Indians, a "noble" race who ought to "own" the country but who are ill-equipped to deal with the evils of modernity that more advanced peoples have introduced like liquor or fentanyl.[1]
Summary: They (here now referring to believers in your "narrative" rather than believers in HBD) see whites as a weaker and nobler race, much like the Noble Savage myth portrays American Indians...
But where this worldview makes some sense in the case of the Indians, it is utterly nonsensical to apply it to whites
Summary: But American whites aren't American Indians so the comparison is weak (then why did you make it?)
It seems clear to me that this is actually two statements without much connection between them.
Statement 1: If you take HBD seriously then you should see whites as an inferior race.
Statement 2: "Narrative" believers see American whites like Noble Savage-fans see American Indians.
To be clear, I never thought you were claiming that white people are racially inferior to Guatemalans. You say so in the very first sentence of the quoted section - this is what you believe to be the logical conclusion of HBD, not what you believe yourself. The context is there.
Everyone has understood this from the beginning, including the person you responded to. We know what you meant, and what you meant is precisely what we're objecting to.
Sunshine
4d ago
What you actually said:
This worldview would seem to conflict with HBD theories. Indeed, one would have to conclude that whites are an inferior race. Guatemalans in their "third-world s***hole" don't just sit around despairing, they cross multiple borders and look for work in a country where they can't even speak the language, while white men who got laid off in their rust-belt factory towns twiddle their thumbs and inject fentanyl, unable to compete with said Guatemalans.
Sunshine
4d ago
It "spoke plainly" and provided evidence.
I did not find your original post to be plainly spoken. Actually, I'd like to get into it.
You talk about your evidence, and you did provide some, but it was all in support of the things that didn't need supporting. I would be willing to take your word for it that blacks are more likely to die of opioids than whites, or that most men have jobs. These aren't exactly extreme claims in need of reams of supporting evidence. I would be willing to accept them for the sake of parsing the rest of your argument even if they weren't true.
Here's an example of a part of your post I would have liked to see some supporting evidence for:
The new narrative on the Online Right is that there's a huge mass of white men without jobs who have no choice but to inject fentanyl because of "the border" and free trade sending the factories to China.
The new narrative according to whom? Since when? This is a rather extreme claim, made right at the start, and the structure of the post is essentially arguing that this narrative is hypocritical. And yet you advanced this argument yourself. You aren't arguing against someone else making a coherent argument, you're assuming someone believes this thing and arguing against what you think they must think. So, the part of your post I would most need to see evidence for is that this "narrative" is actually a widespread belief, and you provide none.
Nearly every grand-theory-of-everything of why the world looks like it does today gets laughed out of any room with people who capable of deep critical thought in adjacent topics
Cool, I'm glad you found a way to dismiss a whole belief system based on how you imagine the relative status of people who believe in it compared to those who don't. I'm sure there's no need to engage with the object matter on this, your preconceived ideas are probably 100% right about everything.
Sunshine
20d ago
I'm no expert on Middle Eastern politics, but to me it looks like they agreed to a ceasefire because neither government has anything to gain from continued hostilities. Israel has already achieved its strategic objectives and Iran is struggling to effectively retaliate. Getting into a protracted war would be costly and destabilizing for both of them.
What do ICE, the Black and Tans, and the Mongol Horde have in common? They're something you unleash on subjects who refuse to be governed by the gentle hand of civilian administration. If you play nice and pay tribute you get the diplomat or the local policeman. If you refuse you get soldiers instead. Are they a dangerous overstep? Yes, deliberately so. They're also unjust, rapacious, and cruel. They're intolerable in a civilized society. That's the point. They're supposed to be intolerable. Unable to tolerate them, the regime's enemies are then supposed to surrender.
When this force is unleashed, the offer is always the same: "I'll pull back my murderous thugs when you start treating my civilian administrators with respect appropriate to the power of my regime. You know the baton-carrying constable has no power over you, but I order you to behave like he holds your life in his hands. You know this arrogant nobleman claiming to speak for the Khan only has a few bodyguards at his disposal, but I order you to pretend he has the power to destroy you with a wave of his hand. If you refuse to accept my power when I rule with a light hand, I'll rule with an iron fist. If you refuse to obey my constable or pay tribute to my diplomat, I'll send in the troops to extract your loyalty by force."
Sunshine
26d ago
Is there another nation-building strategy that has been proven more effective? I only said it was the most effective strategy that has been tried so far. I didn't say it was neighborly.
Sunshine
26d ago
Given that Syria has normalized diplomatic relations with the U.S., bombing them to pieces seems to be the most effective nation-building strategy that has so far been tried. Don't invade, don't occupy, just bomb anti-American regimes. The bombings weaken the regime and allow a rival to take over, and the desire to not get bombed makes the new regime want to stay on America's good side. Simple as.
Does Iran have the ability to destroy that command center? My understanding is that the whole point of building such things underground is to make them resistant to air attacks.
If they do, then the answer is yes. When you're fighting a shooting war then of course you have the right to attack all military targets. This is not a subject under serious dispute, except by a few frivolous activists who are just looking for excuses to criticize countries they already oppose. If Iran has the ability to destroy that base and they're at war then they have the right to destroy it, even if they have to kill one hundred skajillion innocent babies to do it.
Just like Israel has the right to bomb Gaza to ashes if that's what it takes to keep their citizens safe.
Glad we cleared that up.
I'm equally baffled by Trump's 180, and for the same reason. The best answer I can come up with is that Trump isn't on the list, but someone who is on the list has something on him.
More options
Context Copy link