covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The question is: would NATO accept to lose to Russia in a war of attrition, with all that means for its credibility and for viability of major land grabs, or would it rather accept some upfront cost to de-mothball military production lines
Because the actual enemy of USG and it's satrapies are the people who would gain wealth by producing things such as arms. Deindustrialization of the west wasn't an accident and it wasn't the result of "economic forces" - it was the result of a series of deliberate choices. Reversing that trend after the Regime has gone mask off would be very high risk.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
If I understand correctly, your argument is that forced segregation and requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus was actually just because without those measures, blacks are criminals who make cities unliveable?
Breaking it down into specific rules which are questioned on the basis of the justice of the particular rule changes the framing of the question from one that is fundamentally about results - "we care that we have cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder" to one about process and procedure - "the most important thing is that our procedures be found valid by a cabal of people - but those people aren't responsible for the results of the system as a whole". Yes, without a framework of many rules - none of which is individually necessary or sufficient - blacks wage a continual war of aggression against whites. Stopping that is more important than the details of the rules. Having to sit in the back of a bus is a small price to pay to live in society where order hasn't broken down entirely such that someone on the bus is smoking meth which is the end result of subjecting every particular rule to scrutiny and finding an exceptional case where that rule seems unjust.
You may believe that blacks should be treated differently based on your moral or social principals, or you may believe blacks are extra-prone to criminality and this justifies treating them as such, but that's not a legal principal that can be found under the Constitution.
I could say that this is just as much found in the Constitution as any of the things that the Regime has found in it in since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court and Earl Warren decided to totally re-write American law but instead I'll be honest - I don't care at all if it's "a legal principle that can be found under the Constitution" because I have observed that my enemies don't care about that either and they don't care about having a functioning society either. Turning the legal system into a game of who can lie most convincingly about what is found in a document when it plainly isn't there has run its course - the incentives for playing such a game are nothing but bad.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The specific rules are not important - who rules and what they are permitted to do is what's important.
"The question is which is to be master, that is all." - USG asserted that it is to be master. Did USG provide better rule? Decades of horrific violence demonstrated that no, it did not. Why do I care about bus seating in comparison to that?
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
This is normal discourse, you simply "disagree on the object level" but if my interpretation of the object level is correct then the metadiscourse is meaningless. You can wonder why this position or that is being taken by progressives and speculate about the forces of this or that but if you've ruled out the actual explanation all you can do is introduce epicycles into your increasingly ornate model like Scott with his absurd claim in his Toxoplasmosa of Rage essay where "you see, they pick fraudulent cases that fall apart immediately because those are better loyalty test" - that's an epicycle to avoid noticing that they pick fraudulent cases that fall apart immediately because their alleged world-view is a cover story for the destructive changes they want to impose and the cover story itself isn't related to reality but is the outcome of a media / academic / bureaucratic machine that is in the narrative creation business.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The obvious exception is South Africa, which had much earlier settler colonialism as opposed to the later and more popular extractive model. Looking at the societies that have emerged post-decolonisation, a really striking fact is how much more violent South Africa is than any other country in the continent, even those that have experienced recent military conflict. I'm talking specifically here about murder rates, by far the most reliable measure of violence even in extremely badly-run societies (ie most of Africa). South Africa is notably more violent than almost any other African country; in some cases up to 30× more (note that oppression is colourblind, and SA's only large competitor in the murder stakes is Nigeria, anothe country cursed with intense ethnic conflict, and jockeying, alternating subjugation of the Yoruba by the Hausa historically, and the inverse now).
Sub-Saharan Africans in RSA aren't native to the region and so don't even have traditional African levels of crime control. That's what you're seeing the effect of.
An interesting counterfactual for you is this; what do you think would be the state of the US today if reconstruction of the slave regions had been completed in earnest and totally?
Detroit but with hot weather - the same results as you got when progressives actually did get to use their pets to enact their violence revenge fantasies on their class enemies.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison. You can't have it both ways and claim that the black incarceration rate demonstrates that blacks are more criminal but also they aren't subject to laws.
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported. The famous 13/57 understates it because that only counts solved murders and there are massive numbers of unsolved murders in places where every single unsolved murder is committed by a black person.
The rest of your post is progressive nonsense.
Scott wrote an article about this that is still valid.
Scott is a conscious, aware liar and has never written an article that is "still valid" - much less one which fell to a very simple rebuttal in the comments.
If we’re really concerned about media bias, we need to think about Chinese Robber Fallacy as one of the media’s strongest weapons. There are lots of people – 300 million in America alone. No matter what point the media wants to make, there will be hundreds of salient examples. No matter how low-probability their outcome of interest is, they will never have to stop covering it if they don’t want to.
You can use this same logic to disprove the narrative on a bunch of issues.
If every campus rape case that gets publicized is a hoax or a fraud, then the campus rape narrative is a lie.
If every time a black man is killed by a white man it turns out the black guy was in the middle of committing a felony and had a track record of committing felonies then the “racist whites murder black bodies” narrative is a lie.
After all, since it’s such a large country if the phenomena were real then real examples could be found, right?
He knows his argument is demolished here so he backs into "toxoplasmosa of rage - they pick bad cases on purpose because it's a better loyalty test" - which doesn't fit at all (which he almost certainly knows) because there are simply no cases where the progressive narrative fits. You can see every day blacks getting away with crimes, you simply never see that with whites. Turns out it's actually really easy to catch criminals but the justice system doesn't do it for blacks because we don't have "equal protection".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Thanks for the link - this person is easily recognized as having significant SSA ancestry.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Great, it's technically criminal.
Now lets see if the paper that the law is written on will enforce that prohibition.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
He's very light-skinned but has highly African features. I'd guess closer to quadroon or even mulatto than octoroon.
I’m going to ignore your claim that low crime is the thing progressives are objecting to, in itself, rather than them just being stupid.
Seeing as how that's the crux of the argument then there's not much productive discussion that's going to happen here. Progressives really object to "Jim Crow" not because "it's an offense that cries to heaven for redress" but because it worked to make a racially mixed society livable - that's the part progressives object to. You can't claim that certain people being second class citizens due to their ancestry / species / race is the greatest crime in the universe is your guiding moral principle because that is what we have now with zero objection from progressives except to point out that blacks aren't venerated enough. The alternatives are Jim Crow or something functionally like it - apartheid, Rhodesia's laws, Singapore / Dubai / Qatar style treatment of guest workers, etc. or race communism then it's a super easy choice to pick the former (unsurprisingly enough progressives hate all of those adaptations - anything that doesn't result in massive crime and a one-sided race war offends progressives). Progressives pick the latter because they like the outcome.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Link?
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
In this conception, deliberately forming test cases is a sin because you are biasing your training data at the lower levels and distorting the results at the higher levels.
This is a very good description of the problem with these kinds of cases because the case itself is a rhetorical weapon and becomes the exemplar of the dispute in the elite public mind (elite in the sense that no one else really is able to follow court proceedings).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
NYT only doesn't lie so that when they do it has the maximum chance of being believed when they do - a problem which is not unique to NYT but is shared by everyone who explicitly or implicitly has a utilitarian ethical framework.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Yet somehow it happens now and didn't happen 10 years ago.
Do you have a source for this claim?
No, there aren't newspaper reports from 10 years ago saying "today no one got shoved in front a subway train".
On the other hand, there are videos of it today.
This is an amazingly disingenuous request intended to both shift the burden of proof away from you - not great but part of the jockeying - but also to set yourself up as the arbiter - "sorry, just not proven to my satisfaction - maybe they were covering up all those subway deaths" and should actually result in a banning if people want this place to have good norms of discussion.
...what the fuck? How the hell is this a reasonable response? Most of these people are fine as long as they are on their meds
I don't care at all about the hypothetical situation where a subway murderer might be fine. If you want to argue "well, he's not responsible for his actions - couldn't help himself - schizophrenia and all" then the appropriate response is "well then obviously he must be executed and very quickly because a man who can't understand cause and effect who enjoys hurting people is basically a rabid dog".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Based on some recent discussion in the CW thread (I believe), it seems like a lot of the specific issue of "pushing people in front of trains" is schizophrenics going off their meds. Their behavior is not based on a logical reasoning process and therefore cannot be influenced by a cultural more that (allegedly) allows some people to get away with such behavior.
Yet somehow it happens now and didn't happen 10 years ago. "He was arrested 36 times for violent assaults and let go each time" has something to do with it as well as noticing that "deranged men" (euphemism used in one of the news reports by the only source willing to actually notice these things happening) are sane enough to shove smaller, less dangerous people in front of subway trains. Oh look, there is a logical reasoning process going on there related directly to cause, effect and consequences. Calling the person "schizophrenic" doesn't remove that and if it did then that's all the more reason to immediately execute those people as an uncontrollable danger to everyone around them.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
More so inside the Soviet Union than in America, though.
More likely to find a Pravda believer on the faculty at Yale than in Moscow.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
and avoid addressing any of the counterarguments I and others have made.
Blatantly false.
An example - your argument:
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison.
Addressed here:
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported.
If you want to ask for evidence for this then you run right into progressive "manipulation of procedural outcomes" - progressive academics straight up lie so you have to go to anecdotal evidence that nonetheless contains valuable statistical information and that shows that, yes, blacks are basically immune to the law. An example elsewhere in this thread was a black guy who killed a few people in a home invasion who served 4 years of an 8 year sentence then killed someone else when released. You can find dozens of examples on the NY Post twitter feed of "this person was arrested 47 times on felony charges previously". To which you rebut "Chinese robber" but the argument implied there is one that assumes the conclusion. "You can find examples of anything because there are a lot of people" is the general argument but it's simply impossible to find examples "arrested 47 times, committed a newsworthy crime" where the perp wasn't black - certainly you can't find dozens of examples of this. You can't find videos of whites behaving the way blacks do such that there's a joke "new Street Fighter level just dropped" when you can watch a new video on a daily basis of blacks having mass brawls in public.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
But no, you can't because then you have a dispute between progressives who say "the law is so unfair because mostly blacks get arrested" and a pathetic side who says "the law is even handed" - which concedes the frame that if the law was somehow unfairly applied, they'd concede and just allow the progressive pro-crime position. Of course, progressives are able to find some case that they convince themselves is unfair and GOPe types cuck on it as is their job.
On the other hand, if a society has an attitude of "we don't care if you find some specific unfairness, things happen and massive amounts of crime are way way more unfair" then the progressive gets shut down.
You'll note that crime did get driven down in the 90s and this low crime drove progressives into a frenzy and they desperately reversed it as soon as they were able.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
I admire the skillful tap dancing you are doing, but this is merely using a lot of circumlocution to avoid stating your premise explicitly. If you believe that forced segregation and unequal treatment is the only practical way to avoid "cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder," then you need to make that argument explicitly, you don't get to handwave in the direction of "results" and therefore claim that forced segregation and unequal treatment was justified based on what you perceive to be the downstream effects of not doing that.
There's no "tap dancing" going on here. Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now? you sure?) aren't "the only practical way to avoid" [ethnic cleansing and people getting pushed in front of subway trains by "serial random assaulters"] but they are a way of doing so - certainly one that produced demonstrably better results. You seem to be operating under a very strange impression that what matters is that the proper procedure must be followed with zero concern over whether the procedures produce good results. This is an outgrowth of the mindset implanted by operating in a society run on the ideology of the bureaucrat - no one can be faulted for anything as long as proper procedure was followed. Though this seems normal to many people today, it is actually quite insane.
Actually, no, it isn't, because that's an infinitely generalizable argument. "Stopping rape and murder is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping narcotics trafficking is more important than the details of the rules."
Sure, all those things are true technically.
Stopping rape and murder - more important than any societal rules because these are of the highest priority of men to stop and if you society does not stop them then you make an enemy of all capable men who will quietly step out of society which then make it impossible for your society to do anything as you lose all forms of cooperation.
Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules - plainly obviously true. Preventing military attacks on civilians is the most basic of government functions so it can have a prosperous society.
Stopping narcotics trafficking - this is only a problem that's downstream of about a zillion things that the current bizarre government we have does.
you are arguing for a position that can only be defended and implemented through the laws in existence.
There are no laws in existence - there's only who / whom. That's not a reflection of the only possible state of affairs but it is a correct description of what we have now and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
If someone still has an outstanding commercial mortgage on their vineyard in Napa, that is going to increase the price of the wine produced
Fixed costs don't change prices for profit maximizing businesses.
If they could make more profit charging more (or less), they'd charge more (or less).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
because he assumed that the press would not believe anything he had to say
"Believe"? The theory is that they're part of the conspiracy.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Prediction before reading is that they think affirmative action is no big deal as far as getting low IQ blacks - ("it's about the underfunded schools!") into college but also totally essential to overcome the inherent systemic racism enshrined in powerful institutions such as college admissions committees.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Empires require expansion, and there are few good provinces left for the US to incorporate
The reason empires require expansion is because the parasitic imperial class grows (it takes an interest in the system as a whole to slow this growth and everyone in the system is interested only in maintaining his position in the system - hence, no one checks the growth of the parasitic load). The US empire is mainly a system of parasitism on Americans rather than one where foreign conquest yields returns.
Even the foreign clients are much like domestic USG clients - an excuse to take money from Americans, take a cut and give it to the foreign client in exchange for their main service - hostility to USG enemies (Americans).
This makes the historical comparisons difficult - this is rather a unique historical situation.
Of course the one way that USG actually does collect a benefit from running its empire is that the empire uses dollars and USG controls those and can issue them at will - that acts as a silent tax on the entire empire that can't be evaded.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The implication here is that we mainly have an epistemology crisis.
Most people aren't going to be as competent and trained in argumentation to spot these evasions but a big problem our society has is that even our "elites" can't spot them when the evasions are done as long as they're being done for reasons the NYT would support.
Implicitly their epistemology is "believe the implication of the NYT - don't look for the missing factual content or added non-factual content".
Very few people can reason out an epistemology on their own - most need to be educated in it. At the very least almost everyone needs to read about it and to do that one would have to find the right reading material. This means there's a lot of power in getting to set the ground rules of evaluating claims and installing a faulty epistemology - look at wikipedia and how it launders progressive claims through the "reliable sources" rule. The wikipedia rules are rules for deciding what should get printed on the site which implicitly makes them rules about discerning truth.
Progressives want to install rules like "trust the NYT" (which wikipedia has as a literal rule) because progressives known that other progressives control those institutions. Progressives still have a back door of "ignore the NYT when it says things we don't want to hear", of course.
They don't have gay pride parades.
More options
Context Copy link