Here is the full episode that the clip about stoning is taken from. The clip starts around 1:02:00. He continues:
The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters. So how do you best love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth. You don’t have to be cruel, you don’t have to be un-Christlike in your communication; however, you certainly — and I would love for Ms. Rachel to respond to this — is pride a Christian value? She thinks it is. Happy pride month everybody. Is being proud something we should...? No, scripture tells us the opposite. Pride goeth before the fall. Pride is something we need to reduce in our life. Increase humility, and increase piety. And obedience.
The New Testament revised how sinners ought to be treated (stoning them to death is definitively "un-Christlike"), but did not generally override the list of behaviors considered to be sinful; and Leviticus attests that gay sex is a sin. If you grew up anywhere in the West and not under a rock, you have understood this argument since you were a child. It's not hard to find videos where Kirk expounds on this very basic principle:
The Old Testament and New Testament harmonize with one another, but Christ brought it to a different level, a different covenant, and a different moral teaching. It wasn’t just enough to say that man shall strike eye for eye, it’s that you shall turn the other cheek, that you shall love your enemy. Christ’s moral standard was much more even elevated than that of the Israelites and the Hebrews.
In another comment you called him "savvy", implying that he's dogwhistling to an audience who will understand that what he's really saying is they should go out and stone a gay. Well, it would have to be a very high-pitched whistle indeed to pierce through the background noise of the millions of Christians who have taken the same line for centuries in all sincerity – not to mention all the other times he himself modeled or advocated a firm but gentle stance towards gays and other gender non-conformists.
As for the affirmative action comments – OK, yes, he made a snide remark pointing out the obvious corollary of benefiting from affirmative action. But come on. You do realize this is the best that hordes of disgruntled leftists have been able to dig up, right? He was more civil than most commentators of similar stature, left or right. I was never a fan of his, but watching some of his videos now, it's striking how strong his commitment to politeness was – as far as I've seen, he never raised his voice or cursed at his interlocutor; he was content merely to let the fools he debated make fools of themselves, without piling on ridicule; he would consistently chide the crowd when they were heckling or otherwise being less than fully accommodating to his opponents; and his final appeal was often to love and never to its opposite. I'm no Christian myself, but these are exactly the sorts of qualities I've always admired about Christians, and he was pretty much a sterling example.
(The way he marketed himself – "handing out L's" – doesn't quite align with that, but my rejoinder is again simply: come on. He wasn't literally an angel, but by the standards of argumentative political content targeted at his audience's age and IQ bracket, he merits a place in one of the higher celestial spheres.)
ahobata
18d ago
The girl in the video is adamant that he was accompanied by a male at first, and that the sister only showed up later on.
ahobata
19d ago
One piece of evidence I haven't seen anyone else post is this 20-minute-long pair of videos in which a young teenage girl, claiming (in my opinion, beyond any reasonable doubt; there is some supporting evidence) to be Lola and Ruby's friend Mayah, gives her side of the story. To summarize:
- The girls were on their way to meet some friends
- They passed Dumana, who was with a male friend at the time
- He called Lola "sexy"
- The girls began to shout at him, saying "Go away, she's 12"; he was undeterred and kept calling her sexy
- Mayah "dragged both girls away", hoping to diffuse the situation
- Dumana started to follow them (he had initially been walking in the other direction)
- The girls noticed and began shouting, "Why are you following us/Stop following us"/etc.
- Another man heard the commotion and asked the girls if they knew Dumana and his friend
- The man got up in Dumana's face; Dumana pushed him; he backed down; Dumana kept following as the girls shouted at him
- Dumana started to speak on the phone in a foreign language
- As Ruby was texting a friend, Dumana's sister came "flying around the corner" and attacked her from behind, with Dumana joining in ("punching and kicking her head")
- Mayah stepped away to call the police
- Lola surprised everyone by revealing she had weapons tucked under her waistband, to Mayah's disapproval (incidentally this contradicts the reading of "retrieve" in the GiveSendGo telling of the events that would have Lola running home in the middle of the confrontation)
- Dumana started to film
- Shortly after the end of the video, Lola fled the scene, to Mayah's disapproval
Condensing the rest for brevity:
- The police arrived quickly; some of them went off to find Lola and brought her back
- Mayah accompanied Ruby to the hospital
- (From what I gather, Mayah heard that) Dumana resisted as the police attempted to force him into a police car next to Lola's, by punching and kicking them, spitting on them repeatedly (so that they had to put a spit hood on him), and urinating in the car
- The last few minutes of the video are spent requesting that people please stop associating her name with Lola's face and actions, and pooh-poohing Lola for carrying weapons
So, that's the "she said". It's also worth noting that several times in the video, Mayah, with apparent contrition, "admits" to the girls possibly having exacerbated the situation with all their shouting. She also emphasizes that their belligerence was due to the outrageousness of Dumana's behavior and had nothing to do with race.
It's unclear what triggered the escalation to physical violence or by what dream logic Dumana's friend transformed into his sister. Still, I'm pretty confident that however much the girls might have raised the temperature of the situation, anyone in possession of all the facts would overwhelmingly blame Dumana and his party for what happened. As I already did before looking into it at all, based on what I believe to be better-calibrated priors than many people in this thread have.
(I speculate that some posters are trying to signal that their ability to noootice doesn't stop at race, that they're not to be confused with Uncle Roy. "Ruby's a hooker name, dude! Don't you know just how violent CHAV girls are?" "No, do you?" "No." This causes them to make epistemic mistakes that they wouldn't ordinarily make, like trusting the media and police's early reporting not to misleadingly downplay something a brown migrant did to a young girl, which we already know they did to some extent.)
I'm also open to bets.
The plot continues to thicken.
Yesterday, 480K-follower account Aesthetica claimed to have gotten in touch with the mother of a friend of the two girls in the video, who was with them at the time. Her message:
"Yes. So what happened was the girls where out just walking and the man in the picture made comments to lola(the younger girl) calling her sexy and other sexual remarks then the girls started to tell this man to leave them alone and stop following them and making sexual remarks to them. After that the man's sister (also in the picture) came around the corner and physically attacked ruby(the older sister) she grabbed her hair dragged her to the floor started to punch her then both the man and woman where kicking her in head while she was on the floor. At this point my daughter (mayah) called the police so my daughters account after that is all abit blurry. But that is when lola had the weapons she pulled them out to protect ruby. After that the man came back at lola recording her making sure she showed the weapons to the camera and antagonising her. Ruby was hospitalised after the attack with a severe concussion a tennis ball sized lump to the back of her head aswell as lots of bruises."
Aesthetica also set up a GiveSendGo whose funds are to be received by one "Elaine Thomson". GiveSendGo has allegedly verified the details.
Is this believable? On the one hand, 480K followers is a lot. I'm not familiar with the account, but I doubt it would have gotten so big if it had a history of such brazen fraud as this would be if proven false. Such a track record would at least make that follower count less likely. Of the many replies asking for evidence or accusing him of scamming, I haven't seen any pointing to a past instance of grift. On the other hand, my googling hasn't turned up any connection between Elaine Thomson and Mayah, and no other reporting has disclosed the names of the other two girls.
Or, not in connection with this case. Two girls named Lola and Ruby were reported missing in July. Moreover, the description of the clothes Lola was last seen wearing -- "a blue Nike t-shirt and light blue jeans with tears on the knees" -- precisely matches what was seen in the video. That can't be a coincidence.
So how did Aesthetica know their names? Two possibilities that I can see: either he's telling the truth, or he was somehow made aware of a news story about missing girls with matching physical descriptions, connected the dots, hopped right on fabricating the mother's message -- using the girls' real names to make it believable (but shrewdly waiting for other accounts to provide "confirmation" in the form of the news story where he found them) -- sprinkled in some falsifiable info like Ruby's hospitalization for no apparent reason, and got GiveSendGo to go along with it. I think it's more likely that he's telling the truth. (Which is of course a separate question from whether the mother is telling, or knows, the whole truth.)
(Edit: I searched "lola dundee" on X and found one account, a right-wing-coded account with 139 followers, that made the connection before Aesthetica's post. That does make the fraud story somewhat more plausible.)
I don't want to speculate too much on what it means that the girls had been missing for weeks. "They're feral children" and "they were abducted/being groomed" can handle that datapoint about equally well. One thing that puzzles me is why the woman Aesthetica corresponded with didn't mention that the girls had been missing.
Let's consider the other side of the Bayesian story. In an earlier comment I posted that one gypsy grooming gang had been caught in Dundee within the last few years. Zoomer Historian on X has pointed to two more stories involving gypsy grooming gangs operating in Dundee, raping girls and coercing them into prostitution. As for Ali Dumana himself? If this screencap is to be believed, he has bragged on social media about bringing in the "UK [cat emoji] money".
So we have:
- A video of a gypsy, a (taking your word for it) tiny minority group in northern Scotland, accosting a pair of underage girls, one of whom says something like "Get away from my sister",
- In a city where gypsies are known to have been running grooming gangs,
- With a hard-to-fake, probably authentic (from Aesthetica's perspective) story from their friend's mother explaining that the girls had been defending themselves against sexual predation,
- And the man himself dropping thinly veiled hints about pimping on social media (again, assuming the screenshot wasn't faked).
Against this we have:
- A BBC report with an easily backtracked statement that there is "no evidence" the girls were at risk of sexual assault,
- A police report warning against "misinformation", without specifying what exact rumors have been misleading,
- Prejudice against Scottish LHC, from the "informed" perspective of a foreigner who lived within a few hundred miles of the area for a year or two.
Others have stressed the BBC and the authorities' dismal track record on stories like this. I'm with them that these mealy-mouthed official statements provide almost no evidence one way or the other. When migrants harm or predate on sympathetic white victims, they obfuscate it. Even when it's inevitable that the full story will eventually see the light of day, they slow-walk it in the hope that the furor will have died down by the time that happens. They did it for years with the grooming gangs in England, they did it with Southport, and I see no reason to believe they wouldn't do it again here. Dumana might still turn out to be wholly innocent (and not an NGO plant as @ArjinFerman speculates) -- though I doubt it -- but even if so, this level of smug condescension towards anyone not willing to take the BBC's word for it is completely unwarranted.
ahobata
28d ago
As for the “migrant crime” angle, I want to point out that Scotland is not England, and certainly not Rotherham. The “migrant problem” is much less pronounced here.
Maybe, but there still is one. A Romanian (gypsy, judging from the complexion?) grooming gang was caught operating in Dundee in 2022.
Not every social movement is equally amenable to a definition. The more top-down/theoretical/intellectual it is, and the less history it has, the more definable it is. Marxism in the immediate wake of Marx, for example, is easy to define: if you agreed with the empirical claims of Marx's writings and traversed more or less the same bridge from is to ought, you were a Marxist. On the other side of the spectrum, you have, say, early Vedism, with its decentralized networks of charismatic teachers, regionally delimited textual canons, abortive explorations of new spiritual/intellectual territory, and so on.
In general, successful top-down movements are more fractious than successful decentralized movements. Or at least, they're more likely to split on clearly defined intellectual lines. As the new movement acquires prestige, the pressure to maintain a united front against outside challengers weakens, and the internal "attention economy" becomes large enough to tempt intellectuals to carve out a niche for themselves within it by attacking or reformulating the orthodox tenets. One clue as to the nature of wokism is that its internal fractures don't look like this. On an intellectual level, there's barely any disagreement at all. Most infighting is along personal lines ("Are this person's sins bad enough to warrant cancellation?"), or "intersectional" lines ("Should Asians call the police/make a stink when they're mugged by black men?").
My tentative one-sentence understanding of wokism is that it's a vulgarization of strands of left-wing thought dating from the 60's and 70's, (including CRT). In turn, what differentiated that era of leftism from the popular Civil Rights Movement was its institutional base in academia, which insulated it from both the particularism inherent to real-world politics and from the low level of abstraction demanded by popular movements. I haven't studied CRT in any depth, so this is a weak point of my argument, but loosely speaking I think what happened is that it replaced the concrete grievances of the CRM with a quasi-metaphysics of oppression, with new jargon to match (e.g., demonizing "whiteness" and "patriarchy" instead of "white people" and "men").
The dominant/marginalized, oppressor/oppressed dyads were raised to a higher level of abstraction in three ways. First, whites/men/straights were made into categorical oppressors, so that in no situation could e.g. black people be said to be oppressing white people, even where the dictionary definition of "oppression" would strenuously disagree. Second, with the aforementioned exceptions, any disparity between groups defined in opposition to one another was held to be reducible to oppression (by definition). For example, if deaf people have a communication disadvantage vis-a-vis hearing people, it's because society has made a decision not to accommodate them, which is oppression. Third, and related to the previous two, oppression was transformed from something that is done to something that is -- the animating spirit of Western civilization. Nothing is untainted by it. No branch of government, corporation, small business, or seemingly innocuous interaction between two members of the oppressor/oppressed classes has ever been totally free of oppression. There may have been some attempts in the past to fix this state of affairs, and they were laudable, but paradoxically, they were also completely ineffectual: oppression is alive and well. In fact, the need to combat it is (permanently) more urgent than ever.
Fast-forward to ca. 2012. Proto-woke has virtually taken over academia, old-school racism is dead, the highest office in the land is occupied by a fellow traveler, university attendance is higher than ever, and social media has appeared on the scene. The time is ripe for the left's intellectual capital to be cashed in for political capital, and for them to go on the offensive. The doctrinal innovations of the academic left are distilled into a few slogans, like "Racism = Power + Privilege" (i.e., you are racist if and only if you are white), which are opportunistically weaponized against political enemies, and abused for petty reasons like earning victimhood points/attention in order to increase one's social status, or settling personal scores. The energy of the movement is sustained by bringing down high-profile targets, which in principle can be any representative of the "mainstream" (anything normal), even if (in non-woke terms) politically inert, or any person, organization or symbol that stands athwart progress. The academic jargon is imported into corpo-speak to help put a respectable face on tribalistic malice -- e.g., any anti-white policy can be defended in the name of "prioritizing underserved/historically marginalized communities" or whatever. Markers of tribal identity emerge, like blue hair and that childlike, anodyne style of art. Encouraged by the stipulated universality of "oppression", new groups clamor for protected class status, using woke jargon to make their case to varying degrees of success. Not every wokester can, or has to, advocate for every protected class equally -- for the most part, they advocate for their own, if they belong to one -- but they almost uniformly signal at least lukewarm support for each other's causes as they come up, and borrow legitimacy from a shared verbal and philosophical pool. Woke-internal conflict is rare relative to the size and effectiveness of the movement; when it occurs, it's largely reactive, prompted by news stories that pit one protected class against another. Despite wokism's immense reach, its conflicts are mainly litigated outside the public eye. Such conflict as happens has a low intellectual caliber, because no framework was previously developed for managing disputes between protected classes, and it's too late to develop one that won't immediately succumb to the Schmittian hurlyburly -- on an abstract level, it's just "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable wall?" The woke recipe for critique, its philosophical core, is reduced to cartoonish simplicity, while its real-world ramifications are determined by historical/political/biological/cognitive contingency -- as seen in the reactions to transgenderism vs. transracialism, and the irrelevance of "theory" thereto. (I'm sure there was some theorizing post hoc, but by this time wokeness had outgrown its dependence on theory.) Etc. etc. etc. In short, the thing that came to be called wokeness metamorphosed into a fully-fledged mass movement. "Defining" woke is a category error, because it became messy upon contact with the real world. It's like trying to define a person.
The above paragraph is meant to characterize "classical wokism", b. ca. 2012, d. 2024. (To be honest, I'm not sure how well it describes its heirs in 2025 since it's so much less visible now (unless you have an account on Bluesky, which I don't).) As time goes on, the ideas and organizational forms of the left will continue to change in ways that defy easy definition.
I am not saying that he necessarily believes all the things in the first list, but he feels that they are at least understandable or positions that a reasonable person may hold.
But not only does he not say the Holocaust was a good thing, he equates believing that it was with the hatefulness he won't tolerate. The only mention of the Holocaust in his post was already quoted above:
...so those 15,000 are just the nakedly hateful, the-Holocaust-isn’t-real-but-I-wish-it-was people.
Are you taking him so literally as to be saying that both boxes (denying the Holocaust and approving of the Holocaust) always need to be checked before he'll consider blocking someone, but he has no problem with either view taken in isolation?
ahobata
6mo ago
I don't think there are any perfect instances of this motif in the Divine Comedy or Arthurian legend (as others have pointed out, Gawain doesn't fit at all), though you'll find many other variations on illicit love.
It is a common motif in Norse sagas in the form of the berserker stock character, who sometimes shows up to the father's farm demanding to carry off his daughter under threat of violence. Though, more often than not the berserker's aim is to marry by force rather than to treat the woman as disposable plunder, and he is almost always defeated anyway.
Outside of berserkers, among the more humanized characters, it's uncommon: while there is one case of a bad boy scandalously seducing a magnate's daughter (Killer-Hrapp, Njal's Saga), in the second nearest example that comes to mind, from Egil's Saga, it's a wealthy old widower (Bjorgolf) that comes calling on his social inferior to declare he will be taking his daughter home with him.
Lusty young men are more often a threat to husbands than to fathers.
ahobata
7mo ago
Very few of those people are Jewish at all.
I at'd 4 people. You are Jewish, and unless you are including yourself in "those people" you must know at least one of the others to be Jewish. In which case that's half.
I'm sure The Motte has a fair number of Jewish users, and given the highly disproportionate reaction every time a Jew's being Jewish is brought up, it seemed reasonable to expect Jews to be amply represented in the pile-ons. I didn't seriously mean to suggest it was all Jews.
But it’s not really clear what he’s saying, beyond saying nothing except that he can look someone up on Wikipedia, then click early life.
Well, his post (unlike all the replies to it) was an observation about the topic at hand. It wasn't about how finely wrought a theory of Jewish group behavior he could shoehorn two relatively obscure public figures into (and again I don't think Motte users would actually appreciate every throwaway antisemitic comment turning into a paragraphs-long screed about group evolutionary strategy and so on). As a reply, it was up to par. It reduced perplexity. I can see why it would be annoying to be faced with refuting a direct association between an isolated fact and a statistical pattern without any mediating causal link. That said, I feel like that's not an uncommon form of argument around here, so if you don't dispute the pattern (i.e. that Jews are overrepresented compared to non-Jews in radical left-wing/anti-white politics/culture production, and more overrepresented than can be predicted from their verbal intelligence alone), you could just let it go.
The comment isn't especially rule-breaking on any of those fronts. It brought useful context to the original post. I learned something from it. If there were a top-level post about, say, people behaving in a strikingly unruly manner in public, and a reply added that they were black as a partial explanation (and obviously it could only be a partial explanation), there is no way that would get modded, let alone as casually as this. Just like the ungovernable black, the far-left Jew who loathes his host country's past glories and dominant ethnic group, and is politically engaged enough to act on it, is a recognizable type. Both Jews and gentiles have been writing about it for over a century, sometimes sympathetically. It shouldn't be necessary to break out the stats/conspiracy board every time one wants to gesture at it (and doing so would probably only derail the conversation and make the pile-on worse).
I'm mostly a lurker here, but I've noticed that when I do find the motivation to post, it's often to defend others from anti-anti-semitic dogpiling and mod action. Maybe this is my own bias talking, but it seems to be the one topic where The Motte loses all reason in its eagerness to shut down conversation, and the quality of the responses drops off a cliff. Besides the ban itself,
If he is interested in advancing Jewish interests, he is doing a very poor job of it [by opposing Israel]
It's common knowledge (I hope this point is simply consensus so that I can't be accused of building one) that far-left, white-hating, anti-colonial Jews are often, perhaps usually, also anti-Israel. Obviously this would make it hard to argue that Hermer and Sands are part of a conscious international conspiracy to promote Jewish world domination or whatever, but @Cirrus said no such thing. While, if Cirrus took your rebuttal on board, he might have to posit a more complex motivation for the antagonists in this story than raw will to racial supremacy, that is not really a problem for him, as highly prominent Jewish public figures are obviously smart enough to have more complex inner lives than that (that still, demonstrably in some cases, reserve a place for hating white gentiles). For me, learning that both the key figures in the Chagos story happened to be Jewish had the total effect of minimizing the cognitive dissonance/surprisal/confusion I had on first reading OP, and learning that Hermer favors Palestine did little to increase it again.
This doesn’t even make sense from an antisemitic standpoint. If anything Jews want English-speaking nations to dominate geopolitics because they already have ready-made English-language propaganda infrastructure
OP established that whether or not it has anything to do with their Jewishness, Hermer and Sands appear to be acting against national interest, even out of contempt for the English people, as some have alleged. So taking that as given, do you think it is more natural that they should be ethnically English or Jewish? Of course there are many self-hating English people as well so it's not a slam dunk, but I think the point stands. I might have predicted that Hermer and Sands were Jewish on first reading the story, and although I can't honestly say the thought occurred to me, I attribute that to being less vigilant than I could have been (to be honest "Phillippe Sands" should have been a dead giveaway). Thanks to Cirrus' comment I am less slightly less likely to miss such details in the future.
Random accusations toward Jews
"Random accusation" would be if the key figures in the story weren't literally Jewish.
There are people who are obsessed with Jews for some reason, and this is one of the few places that won't immediately shut it down so we get all the witches.
It's honestly not even offensive, just boring and annoying.
It's not that that aren't any decent anti-Jewish takes. It's just that the ones we tend to attract are low-IQ by the standards of this forum.
You're a thoughtful poster most of the time, but here we go with the anti-anti-semitic tropes. It's always the same "low-IQ" verbiage.* What's conspicuously low-IQ about his comment, of all the comments on here? It is at least coherent and well-structured (though short), and it contains no spelling or grammar mistakes. Most commenters who can meet those standards don't have to worry about being tarred as "low-IQ", at least not based on a single post. Admittedly it doesn't take a very high IQ to google someone's ethnic background, but the same goes for any low-effort reply that just serves to add context. "Low-IQ" is boo lights for any criticism of Jews that falls below @SecureSignals' standard of eloquence (which is met by maybe two or three other posters forum-wide).
For every "boring and annoying" antisemitic post on here, there are 10 NPC-level rebuttals. I urge all of you anti-anti-semites to consider if the fact that every drive-by post like this spawns a chorus of affronted Jews yelling "Shut it down!" helps your case.
*I saw a lot of this in the weeks after Oct. 7: according to several prominent internet Jews, not supporting Israel makes you "low-IQ" of all things. Other positions might be perverse, misguided, unsound, averse to facts, ideologically motivated, evil, even dumb, but somehow the word cloud for opposition to Israel and other positions that are facially unfavorable to Jews usually contains "low-IQ". What seems pretty plainly to be going on is that these Jews are leveraging their reputation for high IQ to give their attacks on the "low-IQ" extra bite. After all, they are the final authority on IQ.
ahobata
7mo ago
What a terrible post.
I'm surprised white supremacists didn't pounce on this immediately
Why would they? What does it prove, in the most white-supremacist-friendly interpretation? That intelligent Europeans (alone, as far as we know) preferred fairer-skinned partners? Or do you mean that they should have pounced because, in their stupidity, they would have congenially misinterpreted the findings as showing a causal relationship between fair skin and intelligence if they had bothered to read them?
I don't expect them to read.
Is there a single group of people outside of academia that would be more likely to read this paper? I don't know how many read it in full, but it did generate a lot of discussion on RW twitter, much of it reasonably well-informed. The IQ results were flattering enough on their own that there was no need to resort to whatever nonsensical argument you expected to see referencing skin color.
3500-3000 BC - sharp drop
I suggest you draw some vertical lines on the graph. The sharp drop definitely starts before 3500. It looks more like 4000-3500, with recovery starting around 3300. So,
Sharp drop coincides with the Yamnaya expansion
is false. The Yamnaya expansion began sometime between 3300 and 3000, coinciding with the beginning of the slow increase. Note that it took a thousand years or more for Aryan genes to spread to most of the rest of Europe. I too would have expected the Aryan invasion to be associated with a drastic change in one direction or the other, but that's just not what the graph shows.
Big L for Skin heads
I don't think I've heard skinheads referenced anywhere in the last 20 years except as hypothetical boogeymen. Less of this.
Germanic, Viking...
Please google the word "Germanic".
500BC - 1200AD steady decline
I like this one
I'm sure you do.
This steady decline coincides with the continent’s biggest cultural phenomenon : Christianity
How does Christianity explain the 1/3 of the decline that took place before the birth of Christ, or the 1/2 of the decline before it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, or that during the interval before Christianity established itself in the more remote regions of Europe, let alone becoming a major force in the lives of the scattered, illiterate farmers that constituted the majority of these regions? The decline would have had to start around ~800 AD for your point to stand, but that is much closer to the beginning of the increase we see in the High Middle Ages than it is to your Christian pre-Socratics.
Another L for the skin heads.
I'm not old enough to remember what the skinheads were really about, but nowadays, the image of a right-wing extremist who passionately believes in the salvific power of both Christ and the Aryan-derived heritable component of IQ is chimerical. (A believer in the latter is more likely to be an antireligious pagan (sympathizer). Actually even he might not exist; I've never heard it claimed that the Aryans' special sauce was their superior IQ.)*
ancestral pillars of white identity... suppressed intelligence [rather] than promoting it
Wait. I thought that the "whiteness" of a historical current, as perceived from the 21st century, as a latent variable modulating its contribution to intelligence, was your strawman, but maybe that was an accidental steelman of you. Is your working theory that whites were dumbed down by the Aryans and Christianity, but we compensated for it through the gradual lightening of our skin? I would think that was unfair, but then I don't understand why you say you're confused. Why would you expect all these unrelated things to have a consistent effect on intelligence?
*The closest I've heard is that their milk-drinking gave them an enlarged frontal cortex (unmediated by gene-culture coevolution) and so maybe a superior memory. I'm not familiar with the physical evidence, but one indirect point in favor is that international memorization competitions are apparently dominated by Mongolians, the one (large) ethnicity that both is Asian and drinks lots of milk. Also, the Aryans seem to have had a knack for epic poetry -- or just very long poetry, in the case of the Vedas -- which is not shared by many other cultures.
Given the plot summary, anyone could have predicted it would be a box office failure. Why they went ahead with it anyway is anyone's guess, surely there was a variety of motivations, but repudiating/disavowing their unsought, deplorable fanbase was probably among them.
Actually, not only was the failure predictable from the plot, the plot was predictable from the existence of a sequel. Can you imagine a world where the lesson they took from Incel 1 was that there's an untapped audience of very online white male social rejects desperate to be shown in an, if not positive, at least "nuanced" light, and the sequel delivered even more on the power fantasy and/or sympathetic hearing aspects? Why does that sound so much less believable than their decision to have their core audience raped in Minecraft effigy?
"Correctly", because "absolutely". If I'm having an amiable conversation with a new acquaintance, and I say something insulting out of the blue, and there's common knowledge that I realized it would be insulting before saying it, then no matter what other thoughts I was having at the time (excluding thoughts such that there's common knowledge that I had them and that they're mollifying), or the emotional coloration of those thoughts, it's fair to say I've insulted my interlocutor. E.g., if my interlocutor weighs 500 pounds and my insulting comment is a fat people joke, he'd be right to take it personally. It doesn't matter if it's ambiguous whether I meant it personally first and foremost, or if I habitually make fat people jokes and his being fat was just icing on the cake. The common knowledge that I might "just" think of it as icing on the cake won't endear me to him. You don't make fat people jokes around unmistakably fat people either unless you mean to cause pain, or there is common knowledge that they're meant in good fun. And if I only realized after the fact that I'd said something insulting, and determined my interlocutor had probably noticed the insulting interpretation, I would consider disavowing it.
I think there basically is common knowledge of how negatively all but the lightest (or most candidly non-maleficent), say, 10-20% of criticism of Charlie Kirk will be received by both enemies and allies. Lots of leftists out there don't care to clear themselves of a reasonable suspicion that they think he deserved it (reasonable because that seems to be a common belief, and because there's somewhat of an incentive, at least for respectable people writing under their real names, not to say "he deserved it" in so many words), and they put things out there that their enemies and allies will know (etc.) that they knew in advance would code as "good riddance". The timeframe is crucial: what you can say at what point in time is a social convention that creates the conditions for common knowledge. If you go on the offensive before the body is cold, you know what you're doing.
There are some exceptions, like professional anti-2A lobbyists. In their case, there's some common knowledge that they pretty much have no choice. I guess you can generalize that to everyone who has surrendered some of their agency to an egregore. Along with anti-2A people who credibly demonstrate remorse, like Dean Withers, they serve to weaken the chain of common knowledge.
More options
Context Copy link