I'd have expected to wuss out under globohomo pressure
The end of the end of history may have been greatly exaggerated. Even the one militarist ethonationalist state Westerners can vicariously live through is getting cucked.
and make it known to the Palestinians that there is nothing they can ever do which would make the Israelis leave, so they better get used to a life with the Jews in charge
If Israel cannot easily go into Gaza after Jews were murdered and raped on live TV, they're not going to be able to do what it takes to "convince" Palestinians (or at least Hamas) to "get over it".
But I can see an occupation quickly convincing Israel it isn't worth it, while convincing (more) Muslims that it is very much is to fight Israel.
Why Robinson decided to interview Rufo is beyond me
Cause if you don't Rufo will go around insisting that the Left isn't willing to have a discussion.
Tanista
9mo ago
Regime stability is nearly always prioritized over ideology
Or AA was the regime stabilizer. It would have been very awkward for elite institutions to remain vastly white while the rest of the country was supposed to be "reckoning with race".
EDIT: It also bought off the most enterprising black elites. Inside the tent, pissing out and all.
Tanista
11mo ago
Some trans people would argue that such a “cure” would fundamentally change who they are as a person
So would cochlear implants. It hasn't posed a significant moral problem for us I think.
It is only a problem if you buy into the idea that an illness or deficiency has the same value as the natural functioning of the body. But that is putting the cart before the horse.
Given that transpeople are claiming that their dysphoria makes them suffer so significantly that care is mandated and most of their gains have been based on a mostly pragmatic desire to avoid this suffering they have less room here than many - e.g. homosexuals - to complain.
It's easy - start with bench pressing 300lbs and then do it every other day for 6 months and you'd be golden".
It's not. It's "nobody cares what you look like at the gym, trust me. Just go and do something - anything - and you'll see that it gets easier."
For the vast majority of people, even introverts or people with anxiety issues, this incremental task is doable and gets easier over time. Maybe not pleasant, but that's a different thing.
If a person legitimately cannot perform the task or parse the underlying point behind it or introspect as to why, maybe they need a therapist. Because I doubt caveating internet discussion even more (and losing the low-hanging fruit you can easily influence) is going to fix this.
But I don't think the conservative reaction is the point
The government decided to redefine the social contract in a way that allows it to attack more and more people and institutions as "transphobic" in a way that is basically unavoidable. Because of the moralizing, it was able to do this shockingly fast and with relatively little pushback, even according to activists themselves.
I mean, that sounds enough like a conspiracy theory to me! Not sure why we need to posit some additional indirect play or benefit.
Intellectually, I recognize that executing your opponents at will because they are not uniformed soldiers of a recognized nation state might not be a good policy because one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter, and having certain humanitarian standards makes conflicts with non-state actors less gruesome.
Less gruesome for whom?
These people are already happy to kill and rape civilians and turn their own people into unwilling martyrs while benefiting from the restraints on their opponents.
But then it occurred to me: the message makes 100% sense if we start from the assumption that modern feminists, eager to right cultural wrongs of the past that they perceive, really want to make sure their messaging never ever entails even a hint of the notion that women need to exercise any level of agency in order to avoid rape, assault or harassment of any type i.e. avoid bad men, because in all cases that would be “victim blaming” and horrific etc.
You could do this while admitting that rape is disproportionately carried out by Dark Triad types (especially when society has already been trying for decades to grab all of the low-hanging fruit of "normal men who just think this is okay") and not harangue Robin Hanson types as well. From what I recall from my early internet days when Jezebel was strong, feminists were insistent on rejecting this sort of point.
There's an element of class guilt that is also useful.
Also, if you believe rape is about power or some patriarchal ideology not sex, I suppose "teach men not to rape" sounds more appealing as an actual solution and not just a cynical messaging tactic.
Tanista
4mo ago
Assimilation only happens on US terms. It would quickly overwhelm Canada and bring it in line with US politics.
Most of the distasteful shit (from my perspective anyway - anti-migrant Canadians must hate both parties since I came over in Harper's time...) is Liberal stuff they can get away with because there's no GOP and governmental splits. That changes in the US system.
What should Israel do to ensure that an attack like the one launched by Hamas never happens again? I don’t know right now.
This is basically all I seem to be hearing. Nobody knows what Israel should do (or rather, they have some sort of vague shopping list of 'hearts and minds' and 'developing Gaza'* with no idea how to make it happen in reality) but everyone apparently knows what it shouldn't do.
The only difference seems to be who the "how we got here" padding blames.
* Somehow, when you're dealing with terrorists that will literally steal infrastructure for weapons and brag about it.
Except Palestinian authorities are highly corrupt and enrich themselves where they can. They're like most Third World leaders in that way.
You could frame it as the old autocratic/oligarchic dilemma of "a big piece of the pie for me under this stable but awful equilibrium" vs "let's try something new for the possible betterment of everyone and the likely immiseration of me and my class (and maybe it won't even fucking work)". It looks very different from that angle.
All that said, I reject the starting assumption of OP that the deal is even on the table. Putting aside all of the awful shit that's happened, even pretending that Palestinians would all happily join the Tel Aviv Pride Parade or meet whatever arbitrary standard of assimilation we set, if Israelis want an ethnostate - which many Israelis self-evidently do - it simply cannot be. For such people there are diminishing returns to having some of the Good Ones.
How can we grapple with the two edges of shame, and find a way to have productive social discourse without burying people under piles of negative emotions?
Why should we not bury people under negative emotion? That seems like the purpose of shaming no?
If the idea is that it shouldn't be too bad, then you've probably already lost . Shaming involves both a general (hopefully internalized) taboo and serious consequences when they're broken. My family doesn't have a lot of bastards because there is a general taboo that people internalize but also they know there'll be social consequences.
Not "scarlet letter" level but serious enough, especially factoring in that people depend on each other much more*. Without that people will eventually do as they like.
As for "productive social discourse": that might also be part of the problem. Part of the value of shame is that, if society sticks to it, people can't argue themselves out of it. It doesn't matter what Lizzo feels; a strong society will simply make it clear it's futile to complain and she should and will continue to feel bad about being fat until she changes. That's not necessarily something that's inculcated in a calm, reasoned debate.
This all leads to: You need to have a stable community and norms to have strong taboos. But Americans/Westerners can't seem to decide what norms or even basic beliefs they have and so much of the debate is about how to talk about talking about norms.
* Another probably insurmountable obstacle in the West. When I needed to find something or someone back home I had to call someone. The West has all sorts of impersonal systems that reduce the need to care about the opinions of others.
It is not a coincidence that the Jewish foundational myth entails their presence as a fifth column in a host civilization, within which an influential and trusted political figure spread plagues throughout the land- including the ritualistic murder of the firstborn sons of the gentiles by the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, culminating in a slave revolt followed by their ultimate expulsion from their host nation.
Leaving out a lot of context why the Golden Age of Egyptian Jews fell apart here.
and there's some bits that, while I understand why the authors would feel the need to include them, are a bit well-worn for me.
Lemme guess: "these cancellation tactics actually hurt people of color more" or "cancellation is a band-aid and a distraction from systemic change to fight racism/sexism/xism"?
Tanista
4mo ago
So, the presence of the R allele (either one or two copies) is definitely higher in African Americans compared to White Americans, 96 percent compared to 80 percent. The numbers are almost the same for Jamaican people. That doesn’t come anywhere near the observed discrepancy between African American or Jamaican Olympic sprinters and White competitors. If it were just down to that one gene, you might expect to see maybe six elite sprinters being Black for every five White runners.
Take another sport where explosive energy and speed are an asset: basketball. In the National Basketball Association, the ratio of Black to White players has been consistently around three to one since the 1990s, again Black people being significantly overrepresented if the R allele is your sole criterion.
This is an ultra-simplistic argument, as obviously many other factors that are genetically influenced are important in basketball, notably height. In other sports, desirable body form is more variable. In the National Football League, the proportion of Black players is around 70 percent, but like rugby, that is a game where there are highly specialized positions with different skills and physical attributes. Offensive linemen tend to be heavy and strong, running backs tend to have the physique of sprinters, and most are Black. Linemen though are a fairly even split of Black and White Americans. But in the center position within the linemen, Whites outnumber Blacks four to one. Why? We don’t know, but it does not appear to have anything to do with genetics. In Major League Baseball—a sport that requires sprinting and powerful throwing and hitting—African Americans make up less than 10 percent of players.
None of the numbers makes a great deal of sense if biological race is your guiding principle, and patterns in relation to ethnicity are terribly inconsistent both between sports and within them. And while there is uneven distribution of the R allele in different populations, this does not match the makeup of elite athletes in different sports.
If you mean Rutherford and not the average normie that's all he says on those sports. That's his rebuttal.
Sure, but policies that we don't like or even consider racist is different from "bigotry, racial hatred, or dehumanizing,"
Both things can be true: the Left could be prone to expanding the definition of racist and "black people are just dumber" is generally seen as racist for a reason.
And yes, I've heard all of the alternate phrasings (X million blacks are smarter than the average white, people as individuals) . It just doesn't play well for a reason. I think there's a general discomfort with "X is (irremediably) stupid", which combines quite well (or badly) with "blacks are less intelligent". People do see worth in intelligence (and success in the market), its absence matters.
People keep saying this, but every time I see the dots actually connected, I notice that the threads held there by sheer force of will rather than any sort of actual underlying connection.
Because, not too long ago, all forms of segregation and dehumanizing talk were justified using these very arguments? Not just "cut welfare that encourages single parent homes" but literally "we can't live around these people because they're prone to degeneracy and violence" (and not always put that politely). This isn't hypothetical, is it?
To me this is like living in post-Christian Rome where exposing babies has been banned for decades and is now taboo. Some people start using the exact same arguments as the exposers used to, but insist nothing that bad will happen this time. In fact, they're offended you'd think they are like those people and annoyed you won't take them at their word that, after you strip fetuses and children of their ensouled status, nothing will change and the status quo that was born out of an explicit rejection of their ideas will continue.
To hear tell, the connections are just paranoiacs connecting dots
And if we're willing to say that this bit of political intuition is a high enough bar to censor HBD
I never said anything about censorship, just that the reaction is not some doeish naivete. Quite the opposite.
TBF he did float (willing...lol) repatriation of Italian-Americans so I don't think it was his first plan so much as his hope. As I said, he was polite.
It was just funny how an American can be pessimistic about so many things except that, the power of US cultural hegemony wielded by his enemies.
Tanista
6mo ago
Stipe lost the second time around due to a stupid team on his part which made him weigh in at 234 instead of 250, thwarting his wrestling game.
Maybe partly, but Ngannou looked much better as a wrestler in the second fight. Ngannou also carried his adaptations forward so I'm inclined to give him some credit: he became much more circumspect in general and wrestled Gane to a decision, the went the distance with Fury. Before the second Stipe fight that'd seem like a bad thing to bet on.
He also came in much more prepared for Fury than anyone expected so, at this point, I'm going to say he's a just very adaptable, trainable fighter.
Remember, this is heavyweight where the worst of the worst fight.
I think HW has gotten better but yes, UFC HW is the best place for an athletic late starter with cinderblock hands and a good chin.
IMO that doesn't change that basically everyone expected Fury to do him like Wilder. That doesn't mean he's going to go beat Usyk or Joshua or have a long boxing career but you're underselling everyone's shock at seeing Francis come out disciplined and double jab, stance switch and clinch his way to a moral victory over 10 rounds (I think he took 3,7, & 8 but the rest are dubious)
Someone like Yoel Romero or Brock Lesnar were much better physical specimens than him and they would be much bigger what ifs.
Brock in MMA I grant because of the diverticulitis which hangs over his career. Romero...Romero had a long career in multiple combat sports. I don't see as big a what-if? What if he came to MMA earlier? I guess. But that's the thing about people who have mature skills in another sport: that's kind of their bread and butter, so it's harder to conceive of them as the same fighter if they just didn't do it.
I had Fury ahead on points and he barely looked fazed when knocked-down compared to the times when he was knocked-down by Wilder, but it was an embarrassing performance.
Wilder definitely knocked more brain cells loose. But it feels like Fury was still wary of Ngannou's power even before the KD (the first time he landed was in R2) and Ngannou was much stronger than Wilder in the clinch
But yeah, I think a close split decision is fair if humiliating. The specific rounds on the scorecard? Well, there's always something with the boxing judges.
If I were Fury and cared about my lEgAcY in addition to other con$ern$
At this point both are thankfully aligned for him. He can't lose after this or he's hurting his purse as much as his legacy. I wouldn't be surprised if he pushed the Usyk fight to train and recover more.
Tanista
8mo ago
The examples from the 2010s section involve either old cases or losses for studios in lawsuits for trying this against established stars e.g. with the cast of Bones or Frank Darabont vs AMC. So at least their lawyers were on-point.
I assume anyone with leverage is wise now.
Other people just take what they can get and don't even get on that page because there's nothing to challenge.
I remember some redditor writing a short story (or it may have just been the outline of the concept) about a group of US Marines trapped in ancient Rome called Rome Sweet Rome that got optioned and he clearly noted the problems with a net profit share in his AMA but he also pointed out that he had absolutely zero leverage.
Tanista
9mo ago
That's usually not how it works: I doubt most people are salivating to debate Nathan Robinson in particular. But they will attack the Left, claiming it doesn't discuss things anymore and where have the good liberal leftists gone and so on. This is an old game played by right-wingers and is especially good after some form of college illiberalism is thrown their way (e.g. Shapiro, Milo).
I just heard him on Hanania and he basically said as much: the Left doesn't really do debate anymore so the goal is to make it so uncomfortable that they have to.
Tanista
9mo ago
I don't know of any studies but I certainly recognize this pattern. I don't think it's any flavor of narcissism. More along the lines of 4-d chess signaling.
Nothing 4D about it: I just don't want to sound like Mark Wahlberg.
Obviously I could assume some version of myself that matches the median person then (of course, I'm not really talking about myself then am I?) but I can't be sure everyone will read it that way can I?
She doesn't think you can, which is why she abandoned secular humanism and New Atheism (which was very optimistic about how easy it is to do so). The point is to try to regenerate the old one. I think it's likely impossible too but it's a better bet.
There're plenty of illusions in modern "rational" Western society too. Maybe it's pick your poison, because "a spectacularly unsuccessful Jewish agitator is looking out for you in heaven" as a belief system - at least the liberal version - is less worrisome than some of the secular nonsense I've seen.
More options
Context Copy link