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.
What there is something hellishly dystopian about, is that the very same people who demand you fulfill your duties to the nation, are working tirelessly to abolish the very idea of there being a nation to start with.
Well, there is an argument that what's really being fought for here is not a nation but a federation. Ukraine gives the West/the EU something to rally around, and someone (the European nation most hostile to their vision) to rally against.
So, from the perspective of non-Ukrainians, it may not be incoherent. Ukraine's right to self-determination is important because they chose to join the great melding, and freedom is worth dying for.
The Ukrainians on the ground can fight for some specific, blood-and-soil concept of Ukraine if they want.
Tanista
8hr ago
There was an exodus of people with wherewithal and high human capital from Russia anyway right?
Seems like a good balance that harmed Russia without causing more drama over even bigger migrants flows.
Well, assuming a Euro win, I'm sure there'll be votes. And, if people vote to become just one part of a Euro federation, who's to say it's a bad choice? They chose it, better than being Belarus.
I'm sure some Irish revolutionary who died wanting wanted a socialist state or some other vision of the country is dissatisfied in his grave. The people seem to be managing fine.
As lines go, not that bad.
Of course, that's assuming a Euro win.
Tanista
9hr ago
(even though, as of yet, this hasn’t been implemented afaik)
I still don't understand why this is some impossibility. Is it really that huge a technical issue or does British policy just move at a glacial pace?
But now, society starts believing that learning to code is a secure path to having a high-paying career and the American Dream. It seems that only the sky is the limit in the digital revolution and the booming online sector. Young women come to realize that calling undesirable men ‘nerds’ just comes across as dumb and baseless to most people.
I honestly don't think this has much to do with it. I think it's like prison rape: feminists insisted that rape wasn't funny, and then everyone had to be consistent on this despite men unthinkingly making such jokes forever (I don't really think there's much of a material explanation for this shift). A general tendency to look down on bullying and slut shaming took hold (as well as a claim that men being judged by their attractiveness to women turned women into objects in male status games*), so feminists had to try to be consistent.
Of course, low-status is low status and, whatever people say, they need a way to recognize it or tar things as such.
Flaw 2) Defeatism Silver derides politicians as irrational, for foolishly believing "their party is on the Right Side of History and has the morally correct answers on the major questions of the day." This is accurate, but also ignores the point: if you don't think your party is on the Right Side of History and has the morally correct answers, then you shouldn't be doing this. The only reason to get into politics is because you think you can win. If you can only lose, you need to change strategies
The big flaw imo with "right side of history" thinking is not that parties don't generally think they're right, it's with the assumption that things will work out eventually (somehow). It's not defeatism or a rejection of your belief in your answers to be pragmatic or to hedge your bets.
Don't waste energy lobbying for Sotomayor to retire, lobby for Ds to pull their heads out of their asses in the heartland.
Yes, this is the sort of advice I'd expect the GOP to give Democrats.
Flaw 3) Eliminating the Individual Silver assumes that any D is as good as any other D. That any D Senate is as good as any other D Senate, and any D justice is as good as any other D justice. This is misguided. The D justice that would get past this D Senate is probably going to be a milquetoast, below average, moderate
This was also "Notorious RBG's" argument - she may have even been right. But, at this point, even the most fervent pussyhat-wearers have begrudgingly admitted that she erred. In isolation this argument works I guess but not if the comparison is with a potential Republican pick. Certainly not for Nate Silver's audience.
On the one hand, that bridge was crossed and burned a long time ago, so I guess sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. OTOH, this makes a mockery of conservative opposition to cancel culture.
Or was it a "I give the Devil the benefit of law" thing? If the expected benefits never come in, behavior naturally changes.
But I'll bite the bullet: yes, a lot of the conservative opposition to "cancel culture" is at least partly dishonest because sometimes the issue is merely that they think X tenet of the prevailing view is just wrong and no one should be punished for violating it. It's not that it's wrong for a company to fire someone for X take on gender they had three years ago on Twitter based on some appeal to fundamental rights (surely cons have weaker tools here than progressives), it's just bad that the company culture has polarized so much from what conservatives consider correct thinking. Cancel culture is bad both because it involves inquisitorial behavior and what that behavior is aimed at.
But then, a lot of progressive appeals to safety or whatever are also self-serving lies. Everyone is trying to appeal to some overriding principle because the common ground is shrinking.
Rufo actually seems to possess brain cells still, unlike the weird degradation of Peterson and the embarrassing emotiveness of Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and other frothing conspiracists.
The problem with a lot of the former type isn't intelligence. It's a weird sort of...effeteness? Peterson might actually be better than most here, since his messianic tendencies make him disagreeable
But you see it a lot with the "IDW" - everyone in it is likely smarter than average - where they basically seem to see the dirty work of politics to be beneath them. Instead, they just want to...talk. Uncharitably, because it'd require them to truly break with their original tribe (who they disagree with on a pivotal but small set of issues). Charitably, they've been burned and it isn't really their thing.
Tanista
5d ago
I've seen that said but I can't actually find her stating it in response to Obama's light pressure.
She was asked to resign before the 2014 midterms , I doubt she was defending not doing so by saying she'd wait for the allegedly inevitable next Democratic president. I think the above take might have been cope after they lost the Senate and it was clear the GOP wouldn't confirm anyone.
I think people like her honestly just don't want to retire and the rest is just posthoc rationalization. Look at people like Feinstein.
See, this is why center-left people don't feel like allying with the right, despite our increasing frustration with the regressive far-left
If the center left had proven even vaguely able to resist this sort of thing, the Right would also find them to be a more attractive option than tit for tat. Or would not have needed to get involved at all.
People like Rufo & DeSantis exist because attempting to appeal to universal principles or allowing the academy to police itself has utterly failed. A lot of this stuff (especially in America, in the UK the Tories take a lot of blame since they were in power) happened under their eye. They not only refused to do anything about it, they often attacked both right and left critiques of it.
And then, when someone goes "too far" in response, they lament that there's no partner for common sense and sanity and they definitely would have done something if not for those crazies who made it too tense to get involved.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Tanista
6d ago
I am pretty sure that the school is for the underclass/lower class. In those cases, yes, in order for people to get along even to the point that they stop disrupting the learning process you practically have to beat the tribalism out of them.
Yeah, I went to a "multicultural" school mainly made up of the children of middle-to-upper-middle class people from across the globe. Russians, Chinese, Nigerians.
None of this shit was needed, because people mostly self-segregated and figured out a way to live within that* and teachers simply didn't tolerate shit, it's not like they couldn't find someone else to pay those extortionate tuition fees. My first assumption hearing this was this was a no-excuse school for the problem kids (I wonder if this is a "win" or not for Wax's model: the 'no-excuse' school still faced attempts to destroy it on grounds of difference, just as she claims income-integration schools do, yet it survived)
* Though maybe the next generation will lose the segregation aspect and have more conflict as a result...
But this many years later, that's not a tenable position. She's not that dumb, at this point she understand who her bedfellows are and what their political program is about, and wholeheartedly assists them at every turn. At this point, the fact that she maintains a veneer of respectability in her own public statements is more cowardice and manipulation and intentional pipeline-creation than it is a sign of a mild position.
If Rowling fully endorses any statement made by these allegedly awful bedfellows, then she's just like them.
If she doesn't, it's not that she is deliberately trying to maintain her own distinct personal stance (and avoid distraction via more extreme rhetoric) while still fighting for a cause (recognizing that adult politics often means coalitions)...it's that she's just a coward hiding her power level?
There seems to be a real "bitch eating crackers" element with JKR where people be waiting for The Thing, the big Transphobia that'd convince everyone to ignore everything she said, and steadily got more aggravated when she wouldn't give it to them. At which point, we got more...scattershot accusations.
Besides, I think maybe we should ask to what degree people are "radicalized" (by refusing to abandon biological sex?) not because Rowling created a pipeline but inherently by this topic or, at least, how TRAs act around it (perhaps because of inherent features of this form of activism which separates it from others).
After all, if JKR was radicalized she didn't go through her own pipeline.
But I've done that a lot and people mostly say 'I'm not going to watch that'.
Luckily, I have no life so I actually did watch one of Contras videos on this topic and the Motte did discuss it
My take was: absolute sophistry. The ridiculous length is more of value to Breadtubers than anyone else, since it'll naturally turn off anyone not interested in the dramatics and meandering musings, and so they can claim no one really wants to know the truth.
This is content for the elect, not newbies. It's actually surprising to me that people legitimately seem to believe that the best way to reach someone asking you for basic evidence of bigotry is a feature-length Contrapoints video. I would say you couldn't make it up but, well...
Present-day politics clearly present and accounted for. White people bad, the whiter the worse. Paul and Jessica are presented as outright villains, and Chani is the moral center of the story.
I wouldn't agree on Paul but it did occur to me that Jessica, due to the movies downplaying how much her going AWOL (and kicking off the deaths of everyone as a result) was about love , really comes across as vastly more malevolent not just in this movie but in the first one too.
because "push all the races apart and create bantustans for the inferior ones" is morally repugnant
It's morally repugnant socially (I can't speak on the roots of your personal belief) because we believe that the bantustans are the outcome of white neglect and oppression (even if we place the blame far back in the past or through some dubious logic : e.g. "white flight" where white people just ruin neighborhoods by...leaving)
If tomorrow we just accepted that Black neighborhoods aren't bad because white people took the secret suburb sauce but because low-IQ blacks (disproportionately large group compared to other races) ruin them in a variety of ways then the entire situation changes.
Even if white people were not inclined to abandon blacks, it would be a totally different relationship - certainly there'll be less apologizing for enforcing the law. And things like desegregation and white flight can now be reframed - white people were simply trying to escape the predictable consequences (violence, destruction of legitimately earned wealth) and so on.
White people are then victims, and the fact that the entire federal apparatus is causing excess deaths and loss of opportunity for white people for simply being genetically lucky is what's morally repugnant.
This is exactly the argument the DR makes.
"Black" is a statistical concept that emerges at the population level as an amalgamation of traits and individuals. The race doesn't make the people, the people make the race...HBD is not a unique cataclysmic injustice; rather it is just one more square in the patchwork of immiseration that is mankind's natural state.
I think these are the sorts of things Westerners say because they have an atypically low focus on group honor. No man is an island, we all have a tribe and that tribe and its success matters.
"Someone died of cholera" is very different from "my tribe is, essentially, fucked for the foreseeable future" and this difference matters. Both in that the first affects individuals and that we can easily see it being otherwise. We know how to vaccinate groups, we don't know how to raise IQ.
All of this Coleman Hughes "focus on individuals" stuff is essentially an ameliorative tactic to save individualism and group agnosticism, but that only makes sense if groups are the broadly same. As the dissident right joke goes: "individualism and freedom for all (* obviously for 130 IQ Anglos)". On this view, "equality" and not caring about groups works because they just assumed power would be limited to those capable of handling it. And then everyone forgot range restriction and became optimists.
Once we actually accept that blacks can't be "130 IQ Anglos" all sorts of group judgments can flow from this that should concern any individual. For example: I'm African (my post history goes back so I can't be accused of being a troll - and you can probably find me on reddit with minimal effort too tbh). There's a legitimate argument against the immigration that changed my life measurably based on HBD grounds. That argument has historically worked against me (which is why Western nations mainly took white people and didn't even consider African migration) and may again, if people come to believe it again.
Am I supposed to go "well, as an individual, this is not my concern"? Are my opponents supposed to say "oh, okay then"? I cannot escape my race except under the very system HBD destroys.
I don't think they explain it past that in the books. I guess the BG were gonna massage it later but the implication is that's how they would get some peace (or at least preserve one of the lines)
In the films they do say that Jessica was told to carry daughters but not explicitly that they were to be wed to Feyd (like many things, there's enough to project the book canon unto it but not enough to recreate it). It is explicitly said in Part One that Paul is a boy because Jessica wanted to bring about the Kwisatz Haderach early and was willing to risk Paul's life to do so.
Casts all of her behavior in a very different light.
Likewise, Bill Cosby's blackness has not saved him from having his reputation in shatters. In his case perhaps the most damaging factor is the seemingly callous, premeditated, and repeated nature of the acts.
Insofar as blackness shields you, it's because the mainstream defers judgment to "your" community: Kanye got a pass on things like "slavery was a choice" and the Confederate flag because he was already getting criticism from black people and it was seen as an internal thing (then he crossed state lines). Same with rap's misogyny, despite this making no sense. Allen's community meanwhile is not just white, but likely to be disproportionately turbolib.
Cosby is an interesting example in that there was a simmering resentment towards him for his conservative lecturing and his attempt to act like a grandee to enforce this in the AA entertainment industry. His "pound cake speech" has a whole Wikipedia page. And the things he was saying...well:
But these people, the ones up here in the balcony fought so hard. Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! And then we all run out and are outraged, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else, and I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said, 'If you get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother.' Not 'You're going to get your butt kicked.' No. 'You're going to embarrass your family.'
And:
We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail.
Can't have made him popular.
It's pretty interesting that the first domino was Hannibal Burress getting frustrated and basically pointing out his allegations due to his behavior towards other black people.
And then we were off to the races.
Tanista
22d ago
I’ll go further; sex is not a private matter even if you don’t let other people see you doing it. It’s a matter of concern to the entire community because it just is
The Christine Blasey Ford thing came up again and all I could think was "if the entire nation is going to have to relitigate decades-old teenage parties filled with drunk kids maybe people should keep a tighter handle on them, cries of tyranny or no". Because clearly it can't help but be everyone's business.
That is a particularly extreme example but still.
It's just so unfair. It fills me with anger and sadness and rage and I can't stop thinking about it.
This is where already being a depressive is useful: I've become depressed about much less substantial things, so I simply told myself that this was just my latest excuse.
I'm still depressed, but I don't have this totem in my head I can blame. Tomorrow I may not be depressed, regardless of how we do on Raven's Progressive Matrices tests.
If the worst version of HBD is true (I believe some version is but am agnostic about how unfixable some problems are), if the "crazy" Lynn numbers that even some DR folks seem to be squeamish about are accurate...fuck it.
In a sense, nothing "changed". We all knew growing up that Africa had a disproportionate share of failed states, as kids we believed Asians were better at math and like the two Asians we knew were and I honestly think the older, less educated generation believed in HBD and would just nod along here.
If anything, all it means is that I don't have to spend time reading the huge "it's not HBD it's..." corpus or feeling like I have to do something about it (my father is still fighting the good fight and laments that his constant complaints* have made his children cynical about joining him and trying to help the old country). Just move on and live the best life you can. Even if it was malleable, I'd probably have a minimal-at-best role in changing fate anyway. If it isn't...why the consternation?
If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink. Not because it doesn't matter and we can all be individuals. But because there's nothing else.
* One of his confessions was he felt embarrassed because he goes to the Westerners and asks them to take African agency more seriously, meanwhile even basics don't seem to be done and I quote "our economy doesn't amount to a hill of beans".
Tanista
23d ago
"Teach men not to rape" infuriates the political opposition
The political opposition was routed out of places like university campuses where this stuff runs rampant. It's aimed at fellow traveler men.
Tanista
22d ago
I think "normal" people don't get how deranged this debate can get online.
That might actually help along the swiftboating: surely no one would attack JKR in this insane way if she wasn't really a Holocaust denier (yes, that was recently a thing)/racist/person who thinks all trans are rapists right?
Tanista
22d ago
I'm struggling to think of counter-examples.
Armie Hammer looks like the jock, cancelled. Gina Carano literally used to beat people up (including Fassbender in one of her early roles), cancelled. The rapper DaBaby is black and a jock (I think - killing people in self-defense and bragging about it seems pretty masculine), also cancelled for homophobia. Johnathan Majors is black, looks like this and was cancelled (though he gives off theater-kid-narcissist energy underneath all that armor)
The trans debate has taught me to be careful about forcing people to either abandon their position or bite bullets. They just might!
More options
Context Copy link