@cuwurious_strag_CA's banner p

cuwurious_strag_CA


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:54:43 UTC

				

User ID: 190

cuwurious_strag_CA


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:54:43 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 190

that it took Marx's theory of class conflict, and applied it to cultural conflict

What does this mean? It's not marx was the first person to come up with "different cultural groups have conflicts". What specifically from "marx's theory of class conflict" is present in today's cultural conflict that wasn't in any other cultural conflict?

Now, of course they are related in that both are progressive. But the "marxism" part is a total distraction, "gender ideology" is about as marxist as a republican is

"From wikipedia" should lose you any argument.

Wikipedia is in almost all contexts a better source, in practice, than any random news website or blog. It is especially a great way to get broad context on a topic or issue, which is precisely what OP doesn't have! And in this case it is accurate. Nevertheless, it's confirmed with "primary sources" from alternativeright.com, and elsewhere from /r/altright. Sure, it's morally biased against the right, but that doesn't prevent it from having detailed and mostly accurate articles on it.

Also, "alternative right" is not "alt right" for the same reason that "Afro-American" is not "African-American"--"these two phrases are almost the same so they mean the same thing" is not how the culture war works.

Sure, but richard spencer, when he was still emphatically alt-right, used both, and was using alt-right to describe a "movement" in 2011. That objection doesn't make sense in relation to the way people used the term. I've talked to a lot of far-right people over the past decade, and have seen 'alt-right' used to describe their own white nationalist/fascist/extreme right movement many times, and used to describe their own 'maga / conservative who dislikes bush movement' not many at all.

"They were punished lightly by almost any historical standard" is worth noting. (but @ "perhaps, in fact, in the kind of country the rioters might dream of creating", J6 rioters were more enthusiastic trump supporting republicans with some Q people, as opposed to altright or 'new right' or neoreactionaries, afaict)

Right, and if you have 350 democratic congresspeople in your basement, "If the left imagines they can govern by force and without the consent of the opposition, why should the right not adopt a similar stance" might mean something.

But this is a question of 'was it cool or not for desantis to charge a few people with meaningless crimes', that isn't 'crushing' the left or 'governing by force', it's just a random minor issue. Same for the gun thing, a few people go to prison for dumb reasons, people can't own cool guns, that sucks, but doesn't really have any long-term impact. The right isn't "on the chopping block", legally, if a few gun owners go to prison sometimes - i mean, is the left "on the chopping block" because people go to prison for weed and LSD sometimes? It sucks, but it's quite minor, hardly a pogrom or a work camp.

... it would make sense to include attacks on wikipedia as a source in a context where: wikipedia was being used to support incorrect claims - wikipedia was making incorrect claims - or wikipedia was a key pillar of my argument. But in no cases is that true here - what was being debated was vaguely "did a significant group of people call themselves alt-right, or was it a media term to label conservatives". And I was using it to show how easily accessible that information is, and also supported it with direct links, so I don't see why it's worth questioning wikipedia here. And the wikipedia article very effectively answers that question -

The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected white supremacist and white nationalist movement. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the United States during the late 2000s and the early 2010s, before increasing in popularity during the mid-2010s and establishing a presence in other countries, and has declined since 2017. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by alt-right members, media commentators, journalists, and academics. A far-right movement, it rejects mainstream political ideologies such as conservatism and liberalism.

I think the connection between the alt-right and white supremacy is more 'very close' than 'entirely', but that's very complicated, and this is a decent introduction to the topic.

In 2010, the American white nationalist Richard B. Spencer launched The Alternative Right webzine. His "alternative right" was influenced by earlier forms of American white nationalism, as well as paleoconservatism, the Dark Enlightenment, and the Nouvelle Droite. His term was shortened to "alt-right", and popularised by far-right participants of /pol/, the politics board of web forum 4chan. It came to be associated with other white nationalist websites and groups, including Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer, Brad Griffin's Occidental Dissent, and Matthew Heimbach's Traditionalist Worker Party. Following the 2014 Gamergate controversy, the alt-right made increasing use of trolling and online harassment to raise its profile. In 2015, it attracted broader attention—particularly through coverage on Steve Bannon's Breitbart News—due to alt-right support for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Upon being elected, Trump disavowed the movement. Attempting to move from a web-based to a street-based movement, Spencer and other alt-rightists organized the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which led to violent clashes with counter-demonstrators. The fallout from the rally resulted in a decline of the alt-right.

This is also a decent introduction to the topic, and would've been very useful for the people who claimed 'nobody called themselves alt-right" to read. The mention of dailystormer, occidental dissent, paleoconservatism, dark enlightenment, etc - those are definitely relevant!

So, given that many people in this thread would have been informed by reading just the first two paragraphs of the wikipedia article, the claim that "[wikipedia is not a better source than a random blog / not a great way to get broader context] on topics related to American contemporary culture war" is, imo, false. The rest of the article is certainly morally against the alt-right ... but that's to be expected, everyone is against the alt-right, they're "nazis"! Outgroup, the hated enemy, etc, it's really not worth expecting anything else. The rest of the article is also worth reading - much of it is misleading, of course, and wikipedia's article about priming is also misleading, writing things that are entirely accurate is ... quite hard, but it's still worth reading.

This is probably the most complete deplatforming anyone who hasn't actually committed a crime yet has ever experienced

Statements like this usually aren't true. I guess if you take 'deplatforming' to mean only this very specific context, but consider how 'freedom of speech' was a much less-held value anwyhere in something like the 18th or 19th centuries than it was either today or in the 20th, and consider the regular 'censorship' (and the sort of censorship might vary a lot) of newspapers back then, worse has likely happened. Josh could just be put in jail!

I believe that KF has significant value in the culture war for the red team

KF focuses on the most degenerate, spergy, and loud creatures on the internet, though. While what's wrong with kathryn gibes or chris-chan is related to what's wrong with 'the left' in some senses i guess, there's a lot of difference - and learning more about the bizzare and retarded exploits of the recurring characters is genuinely useful, by characterizing the ways human action can go wrong and can be surprising (which is arguably why it's funny), seeing 'crazy ugly trans person threatens suicide, posts newest medical mishap' doesn't do that much to characterize progressives or trans as a whole. So ... what does KF actually do for the red team, exactly? That people are willing to directly make fun of individual weak, stupid, degenerate people directly, and can see examples of others doing so, is valuable in a sense - but how does this translate directly to a 'red win', whether that means more R votes or neoreaction, and how is it different than past magazines or communities doing something similar (which did not translate to wins)?

only way for the world to function is for society to assume parents have their biological children's best interests at heart, which they do 99% of the time

Not that circumcision is that important, but - say we took this approach with 'lead paint', or unregulated medicine for serious medical conditions, or, when polio was widespread, polio vaccines. It doesn't really make sense.

Given that twitter is headquartered in the US, china censoring 'discourse' in the US would be a defcon 1 national security event and something the media of all colors would be all over, elon seeming to be a patriotic american, and china having a similar level of 'influence' with many other executives and companies in america due to the very deep trade ties between us, I don't think this is a large threat. It probably won't happen - and even if it did, the response from the US, including the "sjw bluechecks", would be significant.

surely desantis is being 'undermined' because democrats dislike republicans, as usual, similar to how republicans 'undermine' biden, not specifically because of voter fraud?

Any evidence here? Did the past journo-list leaks have any instances of "this guy is cracking down on voter fraud! better get him, we depend on illegal voters!" or even something vaguely similar to that?

  1. "there is no evidence that black people commit crimes more often than white people"

  2. "there is no evidence that jews control the media"

  3. "there is no evidence sex ed teachers are grooming children"

  4. "there is no evidence democrats hacked voting machines to swing the election with 5M votes"

1 is plainly false, and justified by a ton of hedges and lies. 2 is ... eh, jews are profoundly overrepresented in the media, but going from there to 'control' or claiming jewishness is causal isn't proven at all. 3 is mostly true, sex ed teachers really aren't grooming anyone, but it's a cover for 'lgbt be bad' - which is arguable - and its own claim. and 4 is entirely true - that just didn't happen!

Just because 'the no evidence game' is played doesn't mean it isn't true sometimes.

As you yourself should well know given your background, only 19 instances of prosecution/conviction is not the same thing as there being only 19 instances of a crime

his point is the evidence for anything more than that is entirely lacking.

There are more issues with the constant sexualization of women. One is that it fucks up your ability to trust people. How can you know when someone is genuinely interested in you, or is faking it?

If sex exists, at all, then this will be a problem for women (and rich/attractive men, and in business, and many other places). It has nothing to do with some idea of 'sexualization'. E.g. - does the hijab desexualize women?

Two, there will absolutely be people that will ignore your other qualities in favor of sex

How is this even a problem? If you're emmy noether, people won't ignore your genius in favor of sex. If they're ignoring said qualities - it's usually because they would anyway.

Additionally, I don't think most women really understand just how invisible you can feel being a man - on almost every level. Personally, I think this affects us in a really deep, underlying way

This is a common sentiment - but, what? I'm male, have friends, do a variety of things at work and outside of work, am never invisible, nobody I interact with IRL is really invisible in any sense. Yeah, I'd be invisible if I was unskilled, uninteresting, unfunny, etc - but that's good, and an interaction or conversation without any of the former would be empty and worthless anyway.

I can say for myself at least (and I think a decent number of other men) that being horny can feel like you're being 'tricked' by your own body

I mean, if sex was worthless, you would be tricked, but it's just a selectively advantageous, mostly fair evaluation of the usefulness of having children.

There's a power that you feel a woman can unilaterally hold over you in a way you can't hold them, which can lead you to doing foolish things

Women also often do ""irrational"" (making a sex/sexual desire-related mistake isn't any more or less irrational than making a normal "intellectual" mistake) things over men, and also very strongly desire men in certain contexts, so there isn't really a stark difference here

I think every woman understands that they intrinsically have value.

Well, every man also just-as-intrinsically has value, in the sense of labor. Almost any man, or woman, can get a job and be paid. There's value! And society and the state respects this in all sorts of ways. Or just being buds with other men of equivalent value / status / whatever. There's also welfare! There are multiple senses of 'value', indeed a sense for every possible activity, desire, and these aren't directly comparable. Just saying 'men have value, women don't' is, at best, an imprecise metaphor, and at worst just wrong. Also, people treat women better because of a combination of the biological role of women and universalism - if we go back to Rome, is it really fair to say that "women intrinsically have value, whereas if you're a man nobody cares", given the severe difference in legal status between the two?

the flip-side, as a man, you are essentially worthless until proven otherwise. Nobody cares

Yeah, but almost all men can prove otherwise in plenty of contexts, so this doesn't really matter.

If you expect 'evil' to mean 'they are pushing diversity because they want to undermine western civilization, the truth, beauty, God, country, mankind, and everything, because they are hitler satan nazis', then ... nobody is like that. Obviously they think what they're doing is good and will benefit their friends (and, because they are progressives/universalists/etc, "their friends" mean everyone). Everyone has all sorts of good-sounding, and even partially true, motivations - hitler, so did stalin, so did pol pot, so did the mongols, etc. Even active malice against something like jews is justified by their claimed subversion of truth, beauty, the race, etc. And if that's evil, it's evil because ... of what it causes, not some clear and obvious property of 'evilness'. (It can be justified that certain subgroups of the population are poisonous and toxic, need to be locked up and kept away from untainted people - for all sorts of infections diseases that was literally true. And, it can even be true as a matter of "inborn traits" - wild animals! So you can't just categorize that as 'evil, because that's what evil means'.) The "crazy person who wants to kill everyone and destroy the world because he is mean and hates the innocent joy of diverse babies" villian archetype exists because he's the simplest character to cast the "brave resistance poor weak underdog" against, and because the universalist claim is that killing people is bad, so people who do it do so because they want to kill everyone. If your enemies are evil (which they can be), it's because the effects of their actions are bad, not because they "intend" to be evil. So, they're stupid and they're evil, not one or the other.

Like, what does the 'evil', in the sense in which it's opposed to 'being mistaken', take on what the woke execs / writers are doing look like? What is it that they intend, maliciously, to happen as a result of casting more black people or showing off sassy strong independent women?

Alt right originally just meant the same thing that MAGA does now. It was conservatives who didn't identify with the likes of Mitt Romney or the Bushes

what? This isn't true at all.

from wikipedia

In 2010, the American white nationalist Richard B. Spencer launched The Alternative Right webzine. His "alternative right" was influenced by earlier forms of American white nationalism, as well as paleoconservatism, the Dark Enlightenment, and the Nouvelle Droite

from alternativeright.com (sorted by earliest first, i.e. from field)

The URLs say enough already - "julius-evola-radical-traditionalism", "hbd-human-biodiversity/liberals-face-reality", "left-right/the-failure-of-conservatism", "authors/steve-sailer",

What are your thoughts on contingent-racism: judging people exclusively on their individual capability (obviously this isn't really what nazis or even republicans are doing), and then ending up with a class / friend group / group of employees that's smething vaguely like 33% jewish, 33% asian, 20% white and 20% indian/middle eastern (0% black/hispanic)? Is this racism? Would it be racism to say this has something to do with genes? Because "no discrimination based on skin color in hiring, promotion, etc" would do that (and already has to significant extents) in those places.

But the new verified users are dumber, less capable, less knowledgeable, less connected, etc, relative to the old ones! The utility mark cuban gets out of twitter had slightly decreased, less useful information for work, less interesting cultural information, fewer connections, whatever. (iirc aella also mentioned using verified replies on twitter a while back). There's a reason everyone's getting their knowledge of e.g. the FTX collapse from bloomberg and the WSJ, or twitter users with substacks and 50k followers, or sam and cz themselves (w/ blue checks), and not in a decentralized manner from @cryptopepe515 (verified with Blue!). Social classes form around useful distinctions of competence, connections, activity, etc. The fact that you are surrounded by smart people is, itself, social class based siloing - any clustering at all is social class based siloing - and it's tremendously useful - whether randomly on the internet or IRL, i'm surrounded by very smart people who are half programmers, and both the intelligence and programming thing I greatly prefer to 'sports fans who do manual labor'.

Not that the blue checkmark is the driver of the 'social class based siloing', all these people will still find their frens with or without a checkmark differentiator, it's just a mild inconvenience. Nor that the current social classes are godo as they are! Plenty of unverified accounts with 10k followers are more useful than the average interested bluecheck on the FTX incident. It's just useful to understand why people are complaining, and the ways in which they are losing something somewhat useful.

[why not read all the replies from blue users]: Because there are hundreds or a thousand plus of responses to a single post sometimes. I wish I had the time to read them all. But I don't. When it's a very specific topic where there are 10 or 20, I will read them all.

It is genuinely annoying to sift through 100 replies from 100iq people that could've come from GPT2 to find a few interesting ones

Understanding precisely what's going on with some stupid set of beliefs can be enlightening.

It can also be useful - if, hypothetically, said beliefs were held by the vast majority of the smartest, most influential, and most powerful people in your country / civilization (and also by most of the less smart, and less powerful people too). In that case, it's probably worth figuring out what they mean and why! Saying "lol this is dumb who cares" doesn't seem to help with that, or suggest ways to solve it.

The 'pain' avoided in the latter scenario is precisely the knowledge that death is bad and sacrifices the potential use and greatness of the rest of your life. A wholesome morphine injection, with associated hospital and regulatory paperwork for the assisted suicide and nurses and doctors and psychologists, could plausibly be more expensive than a street closure to clean up your split-in-half body. Why need a dozen people to sign some paper to accomplish what a small piece of metal in an artery could?

I further disagree with your elevation of suicidal terrorists. They're rabid dogs who need to be put down

Unless they're john brown or george washington or jesus!

This ... doesn't really touch on 'whether or not they could do it'.

In mine, money is not the sole driver of decision making, or even necessarily the biggest one

"not the sole driver" brings to mind 99%, maybe 90%. "Not necessarily the biggest one" immediately brings us below 49.9%. Which?

That’s because it is not the abstract rational profit-maximizing making these decisions, but actual, real people

Actual, real people who are very skilled at, and work very hard at, profit-maximizing - as in, specifically, understanding how the company makes money and making decisions to increase profit. Vaguely recall bezos mentioning how important understanding the details of the financials of your company, and having a good account of everything that happens, is to a successful startup.

Moreover, these people often don’t even stand to lose or gain the actual figure that their decisions result in

Executives often have compensation plans that directly hinge on stock price, though? A common poorly-understood-complaint is "executives have bonuses based on stock price, leading them to optimize for stock price at the expense of social well being / long term growth", which seems to contrast with that.

less strong than you suggest

Less strong than 'total universal law' ... sure, but how much so? Enough to be 'not even the biggest driver'?

Would people actually do that? I’ll say this: if was in a position where I’m in control of significant amount of resources of a wealthy corporation, and I can use it to nudge it to achieve my own political/social goals with small risk to my own career, and with damage to company’s bottom line, I would have totally done it.

But would you have specifically made the cast of a TV-show all white when the market research showed having it be 50% hispanic and 50% black would get the most views because the viewers want diversity? It's very plausible that an exec who deeply believes in 'wokeness' would still not do that, in particular.

Would SJW-aligned execs, unlike me, stick to the moral principles of the gods of capitalism, and only care for the bottom line? Obviously not.

We've totally avoided things like 'how common is this', or the specific contingency that could lead here, in favor of broad, general statements that don't connect to much. There's no way to tell from the above that "obviously" the "SJW-aligned execs" (and SJW really isn't the right term here) would push diversity because they believe in it.

(Also, wouldn't the people 'pushing diversity' here be, like, casting directors or writers, who you'd expect to be more 'woke' and be directly involved in this, and have less exposure to stock price or w/e?)

Like, the above style of argument really isn't gonna prove much. The only way to really find out what the causes are of woke casting or woke storytelling is gonna be reading accounts from people involved, whether they're the woke(?) writers/actors/execs themselves - who will often just proudly state that they're hiring more black people because representation is critical for underprivileged black youth or something - or someone who was there and thought it was ridiculous blogging after the fact.

No, 4channers use slurs because a combination of 'intending to piss people off because it's funny' and 'actually disliking trans/gay/black people'. ("based?") The ratio between the two probably has changed over its history. But it isn't to keep out speech policers!

Empires, nations, countries, and large entities "kowtow to their enemies" in specific ways all the time, strategically, for success. Whether as a trick or just to reduce likelihood of death. Every historical figure we see as masculine or honorable or powerful did things to appease others constantly. They also took action to slaughter their enemies, hear the lamentations of their women, etc - and often more latter than former (or often the reverse) - but refusing to make any concessions, even if they help you win overall, is very stupid and means you lose.

Kiwifarms' actions are already constrained in a million ways by conventional morality, the state, and what hosting platforms are allowed to do. So are yours, so are mine, so are everyone's, it will always be "how constrained, and in what way", not "unconstrained". For instance, Josh can't even enter a gentlemen's duel with Prince - extremely dishonorable! Nor can they - legally - break into keffals' internet accounts and get stuff (despite some members either doing so or reporting so on the forum). And they would do the latter a lot more if they could. They already censor dox, putting it behind a login-to-view box - already kowtowing! And they already submit to their enemies in practice by being subject to the "Cathedral" - as josh named in the post - 's legal system, economic system, and society. Staking a post in some minor, specific subconflict that happens to be particularly obvious at the moment is just a strategic error.

I'm not sure how entirely true the former is, my details on christianity are hazy, but 'jesus righteous anger' gets a lot of results, like this. Righteous anger on behalf of the poor or something

Jesus is just one example, you can look elsewhere - political speeches. There's a lot of forceful speech against bad people, and a lot of strong expressions along with it. It varies in intensity - hitler and goebbels was angrier than obama, but obama's recent speeches aren't exactly placid happiness either.

There's a reason some of the most moving parts of the bible are jesus's suffering and death and resurrection, not jesus smiling, kumbaya, and doing a happy PR piece about mental health. The passionate and tortured struggle is moving! Someone you're not a fan of doing a forceful protest may be unpleasant, but someone you support shouting for justice, they're upset because they care that much, because the republicans are taking away the bright futures of black children, is more moving than smiling for justice. (not saying anything about the correctness of said causes, this 'struggle' isn't that much of one). (not to give the idea there's some simple dichotomy here - both 'passionate struggle against oppression' and 'happy PR speak' are just a few of many different affects / approaches, and they aren't necessarily wholes, and you can take some parts of one without other parts, you can have a struggle against something that isn't oppression that's also moving, etc)

How do either of those supposed weirdnesses justify the 'gay escort' theory?

And how is it that random mentally ill people can get into expensive residences in San Francisco anyway

Haven't we done the "SF has a homeless criminal problem and the police won't do anything about it" thing to death?

Nobody would be criticizing Fox News for biased coverage of Jan 6th if, instead of exploiting their protestors' incompetence for political gain, they just memed them for incompetence. The Fox line should be: "lmao look at those stupid trump supporters, they got into the capitol and just walked around! Didn't even do anything! Classic trump incompetence. And trump endorsed them! Give biden a try."

Also, pelosi isn't personally responsible for her home's security, is each congressperson supposed to personally audit the secret service's protections or what, so the accusation doesn't make sense.

I'm genuinely not sure what OP's thesis is, exactly.

Genetics can change substantially over thousands of years

I don't think 200 years is enough for the recent cultural changes in japan, india, europe, or anywhere else that 'developed'. There probably were evolved genetic changes in 'behavior' in some senses, but I genuinely don't know what those might be, and they're probably rather contingent and complicated. Similarly - racial differences in 'attitudes', organization, or something are ... plausible, but I'm really not sure what they might be, and strongly suspect they mix in complex ways with the existing culture than anything like 'being more aggressive', 'being less emotional', etc. (And also significant variation within races, etc)

(like with intelligence, this isn't a reason to reject sorting, hierarchy, genetics being critical for any sort of virtue, etc - just that it doesn't follow racial lines very closely)