hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I don't disagree with the advice in general, but specifically here, being physically fit can also lead you to a false sense of security.
There's a reason every single 'street fight' guru tells you to run away every single time if you can. Even if you are in shape, even if you know how to fight, you are potentially one moment away from a knife in an artery, just to name a single life ending risk out of a thousand.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think this was ultimately a respectable move from Adams. If you wanted to get canceled for street cred then it's harder to imagine a more irrelevant legacy media artifact than newspaper comic strips. But it's just as valid a cancelation as anything else.
Assuming it was deliberate, like many are doing, then it's interesting to note that this move is potentially alienating to a lot of the mainstream right. From the IDW, Triggernometry, Joe Rogan, Jordan Petersen, along with the thousand and one other names. Race stuff that is not extremely benign is a third rail for a lot of these folks. So if this was an intended springboard into right wing media world: where to, Adams?
In any case its a great saga so far. Primarily due to the way Adams is responding to the media. As far as I know, no apologies. The only thing he gives them is mockery. I don't think this is a hard template to follow for anyone with even half a spine. Someone at EA should get in touch with him, or at least take notes.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Seeing all of these progressives turn into luddites in this instance, and free speech advocates after the Musk journalist bans in another, I think it's fair to say that there are no principles. There is no political theory of friend/enemy anymore. It's a law. And anyone who pretends to, in any instance, be above that law or exist outside its scope is just, through the act, a self described moron.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
My brother, what you can get is your market value.
The comment you are replying to, in market terms, is predicting a 'crash', for a lack of a better term. The baseline ingredient for a crash is a mismatch of information. Deferring to market standards in a market that is suffering from a mismatch of information isn't much of an argument in relation to what the value of things should be.
The rest of your comment is just a framegame where instead of looking at the issues from a sympathetic view, which from reading your comment seems to hurt your personal sensibilities for sounding too much like incel trutherism, you instead just describe the problem in terms of others being losers.
The problem with this is that the frame doesn't change the questions being asked. To phrase the question in terms that don't offend a person of such a grand social stature as yourself: Why are there more losers now?
if you think the responses here are anti-male, try posting the same story but for women being unable to find a good man, and watch the claws come out. The responses aren't anti-male, they're anti-whiner.
Reducing all arguments to group conflict isn't relevant. Sure, there is group based pathology in play like always, but that fact doesn't change the fact that there is also an objective reality in play. Just like many early 2000's feminists were objectively wrong in their assertions about men and women being 'equal' in terms of mental and physical competition in various sporting activities, it can also be true that women who can't find a 'good man' are pathologically complaining about a problem that has less to do with reality than men who can't find a 'good woman'. Just because both 'whines' are pathologies doesn't mean they are of equal relation to reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
More than that, formerly shelved and sold Disney projects like "Sound of Freedom" were outdoing Indy. Considering Disney's apparent cavalier attitude towards money, seeing that kind of ideological adversary gain a win at their expense has to speak to someone. Or maybe it just further cements the idea that these stupid peasants deserved nothing good to begin with.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
Most of the utility from 538 was plausible deniability for 'free thinkers' to be on the "neutral" side. They had the numbers and the data. Nate Silver is a nerdy numbers guy. I mean, just look at him. ABC are taking a mechanism to be 'safely' "neutral" and ruining it. And Nate recognizes it.
That being said, it's all a sham. Nate Silver, just like so many of his 'followers' are always looking for plausible deniability to be on the "neutral" side because not being on the "neutral" side is way too much work. And much more importantly, you can't be anything other than "neutral" if you expect to participate in 'civilized' urban society, let alone show up on TV and be respected for your work. The guy was not slightly wrong or missing a few steps in 2016, he was off on the numbers and way off with his attitude.
It's not that "conservatives" accidentally got this one right against all odds against all polling against all reality. It's that there was a manufacture process going on with an extremely biased media complex doing everything it could to push one candidate forward whilst pulling another back. If you recognized this you would have no issue predicting, at the least, a very tight race.
If you didn't recognize it you were either stupid or willfully complicit. The 2016 election cycle was genuinely insane in its bias and one should not take people who missed the insanity part of it either too seriously or too trustingly.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The person referred to in the latter half of the episode as being a very active transmitter of AIDS was probably Gaetan Dugas.
The Wikipedia article on Dugas manages very artfully to gloss over the 'disgusting' aspect of his story by 'debunking' a theory that Dugas was the person who introduced AIDS to America/various cities. And under that debunking sweep the very insidious nature of a person that allegedly intentionally spread a deadly contagious disease, even if he wasn't the first one.
"I've got gay cancer, I'm going to die and so are you" He is reported to have said after sex. Not my idea of pillow talk.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Area A has higher risk than area B. Which one would you like your family to live in?
Now help me understand why the fact that 'many black people are not violent and hateful' should influence your decision. Do the same for the school you will send your kid to.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think it's an interesting step though. Regardless of what the headlines say, Adams was doing 'racism' from a rather 'queer' angle. Whilst people can shout about racism from the sidelines I don't think there are any salient right of center arguments against the position Adams put himself in.
As a white person, is your safety and wellbeing secondary to your obligation to help black people that hate you?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
In short: Ingroup>outgroup?
The problem here is the 'direction' of the society you are talking about when justifying things that happen within it. To illustrate: There are thousands of things that happen every day that, in the past or under difference circumstances, would have instigated a potentially fatal altercation between those involved. So lets ask the question in the OP again, why is Alex Jones specifically getting sued for an amount seemingly plucked out of an Austin Powers movie, yet the other thousand instances that happen every day get ignored or even celebrated? I can certainly think of worse instances of abuse and harm than what Alex Jones did. Can't you?
To put things in a different context, if public figures start talking about the inherent evil of a people, and then others start attacking those people in the street at random, do we punish the public figures or the people who committed the crime? It seems bizarre to blame Jones as if he was the one phoning these peoples homes, right?
Free speech is meant to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, isn't it?
No it's not. Free speech as a concept is meant to sanctify and elevate the individuals right to expression within a society above that of the right of others to silence.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
I don't understand how this can even be a question. Isn't Canada offering these humane and progressive 'treatments' out like candy? What does the BBC reporting look like on that front?
The mass delusion that is 'Integration' and 'Assimilation' keeps on giving.
These two concepts mean the same thing, functionally. Do I have enough plausible deniability to call the obvious outsider I am ingrouping an insider?
Note that this definition has nothing to do with real life. It's purely conceptual.
Outside of that these terms hold no meaning at all. Have I assimilated into a country when all I do is participate in its economy? That seems to be the barometer for most. It's hard for anyone with practical experience to get behind that definition but after we've deconstructed most of our societies down to economic blocks there's not much else to go on. So our newly arrived Syrian who just got gifted a new home renovates a newly furnished living room and kitchen on the local governments dime to separate them with a wall so he does not have to see his wife cook is just as 'assimilated' as any local because... OK, maybe not in real life. But he shows up for work and seem nice so my tend and befriend instincts tell me there are inroads to be made here. So I'll weave a fictional representation of reality in my head to support my instincts and admonish any representative of my ingroup who doesn't conform as being an evil person. I mean, who doesn't want to make friends? Such combative instincts can only lead to conflict and are obviously dangerous. The Syrian is assimilating, even if he talks arabic at home, even if he changes nothing of his behavior, even if he lives nigh entirely on the governments dime and gets treated to luxuries most people can hardly afford nowadays, like a single family home, whilst working a minimum wage job...
This is not 'assimilation'. This is a bribe. Please be my friend.
Did the Japanese who fought for the US change it in any way? Or did they get to watch their ethnic kinfolk firebombed and incinerated via incendiary and nuclear weapons? Is Japan, under the fading soft power occupation of the US, thriving or is the nation slowly withering away?
The high road was taken by former Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl. She left in protest to what she was ordered to do. Her replacement receives an award for doing what she was unwilling. She didn't run to China, she didn't flee, she did the maximum amount she could to draw attention to the situation without incriminating herself as an insubordinate member of the RAF. But with the world being how it is, there is no incentive for anyone with power to step away from their racist ideology that ultimately demands white displacement.
As an exact contradiction to the situation MLK found himself in, there is very little fertile ground for white victimary discourse in mainstream politics. It doesn't matter if it's white men or boys getting snubbed from education and employment, or little girls getting raped by the thousands by newly imported browns. MLK wasn't special and he didn't talk to the people. He talked to media and he talked to elites who rode him as a prize horse for a victory lap over the dead south. White people in the UK have no such backing. When they do organize they get ridiculed and ostracized with the full force of the media or they get outright banned and imprisoned.
So I'd ask again, what does a British male pilot owe the state that discriminates against him? Becoming MLK? Overthrowing the government and media hegemon? Or do a Mike Buchanan and speak into an empty jar for over a decade? Surely someone will listen...
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Reads like some amalgamation of AI and MK-Ultra coming together to write the most incendiary CW paragraph possible.
'A Karen with a potential abortion attempted to appropriate indigenous peoples culture right in front of a PoC! When the seasoning police caught wind the Karen lashed out in a racist tirade! Don't worry, justice has been served: she has been identified and suspended, and she will never be okay again.'
On a more relevant note, the NYPost reports she rented the bike. (As has been pointed out.) Otherwise it might be 'man bites dog' story of the year.
Any culture that exists gets identified. Once it has been identified it can be mocked. Once it gets mocked those who stand on the outside of that process will steer away from it and look for new cultures that have not been identified yet and are therefor free of mockery. Until we repeat the cycle.
Emo, scene, hipster, goth, metal head, jock, nerd, car guy, metrosexual or whatever other 'culture' that exists within a population.
Now imagine if we had enshrined some of the cultures with an inordinate amount of media and political power. Being emo is actually a medically recognized thing. There are special news stories every week about the emo suicide rate and how emo kids are bullied in school and how that is a giant social problem and how society as a whole has to come together and fix these issues that afflict this very special group. There are support groups and specific institutions and outlets dedicated to the group specifically.
How about instead of media mocking the whole emo thing as being a phase for insecure teenage girls who lack personality and are looking for attention and an excuse to use excessive amounts of make up whilst pretending their PMS is chronic suicidal ideation, we rather make laws that outlaw such verbiage.
Regardless of anything else, I'm sure being emo would still exist today if it had been sanctified in victimary discourse instead of having been mocked. Let alone if it was a pathway to some form of power or social capital.
Now, I think there are reasons outside of all of this that contribute much more to the survivability of LGBTQ stuff compared to things like being emo. But I do think it's an important element. If the words to describe what you see are removed from your brain, all attempts to discuss it will be in vain.
The black-white IQ gap could mean that whites are less likely to get caught. It's reasonable to assume smarter criminals will take precautions to avoid being caught.
Crime victimization surveys cast shade on this theory. Arrest rates match rather closely with self reported victimization rates. If there were any relevant amount of white criminals going underpoliced you would see that discrepancy in the victimization surveys.
I would also say that it's reasonable to assume that a lot of white criminals are not very bright. I'd also argue, as a counterweight to the idea that black criminals are more policed relative to white criminals, that black criminals are more likely than white criminals to get away with serious crimes without being arrested due to the sheer amount of crimes being committed in the areas that make up the bulk of black crime rates. Like, for example, in Chicago where the majority of homicides go unsolved.
If you just look at homicides, excluding serial killers, then blacks are way overrepresented.
Of the total % of serial killers by race whites are underrepresented at around 30% whilst black are overrepresented at around 60%.
Outside of that point #2 is valid. Though I have reservations about considering violent crime on the same level as financial crime, for various reasons.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If Poland were not patriarchal, but was under threat from a patriarchal force, would a non-patriarchal Poland not defend itself?
This is not really a question. Feminist LARP is just that. But I don't understand, in the spirit of proper world building LARP's like Anarcho-Capitalism and such, what the feminist answer to the 'defense issue' is.
The lack of self-awareness needed to stake every single one of your positions on the presupposition of a utopia without ever acknowledging it in the context of real-world issues is an embarrassment.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Oreos and french fries.
The illusion of veganism as 'healthy' persists because a lot of vegans are 'health nuts' compared to the normal person. If the normal person was vegan they could easily supplement their diets with certified vegan High Fructose Corn Syrup and Palm Seed Oil.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
We're always just one Benjamin Spock away from revolutionizing childcare and killing a bunch of children in the process.
You used to be able to look towards a healthy society and base your judgement on that. Mixing and matching the old and new, good and bad, like a good conservative. But it seems 'good conservatism' doesn't necessarily lead to healthy children or 'healthy societies'. As we've managed to revolutionize those as well under their watchful eye and careful guidance.
I would like to blame people like Freud, Spock and other culture critique warriors who judged what a healthy society was based on other metrics than the societies ability to rear 'healthy' children. But at the same time much of the blame falls on the societies themselves for failing to defend themselves against bad memes.
Instead of firm guidelines, education and a social fabric built around babies, we get a cyclical revolution driven by anecdotes, hobbyists and professional weirdos constantly trying to keep up with an ever-degenerating society.
IMHO she's easily the most attractive prominent Hollywood actress right now. Maybe Rebecca Ferguson and Gal Gadot might come close?
Maybe that's true, I'm not much for the movies or Hollywood. But I'd then say that there is a dire lack of actually attractive 'prominent Hollywood actresses' right now.
I can't even think of there being any particular hubbub about her race in casting decisions.
Hollywood has been ethnically cleansing its movies of redheads for a while now. A quick Google search will reveal that there is plenty of discussion on the topic. If there hasn't been any hubub in 'recent years' then it would only be because it's an old culture war that was has been completely lost by 'team red'. More and more of those.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
This post and OP annoy me since they accuse others of looking for a culture war angle when they are doing the same thing.
I mean, I don't actually care about the Spanish womens national team. Like, at all. Never spared them a thought or wondered if their bureaucracy is efficient. It might as well not exist. But I am sure that if it were a mens team being retarded by some women in positions of power that I could muster up some ingroup bias to care. At least enough to add it as another mark against an outgroup. Hell, my carefree disposition of indifference towards this is all a product of my biases.
Point here being that I'm not here pretending that I'm not on a side even if this thing isn't emotionally animating. And I think it would do a lot of 'rational' minded people a lot of good to recognize how their indifference is not indifference at all.
If Rubiales was incompetent he should be removed on those grounds. But that's not what's going on. Instead the public incident is being used as a weapon to oust him. On that front, how can you say, from a culture war neutral perspective, that Rubiales isn't just playing an optimal power game? If his detractors wanted him gone, why not go after the actual substantive stuff? Instead they hand him this publicity stunt to play around with. Now they can't remove him without perceptions being that it's because of a kiss.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I appreciate the writeup, but I can't help thinking you are just 'reading the phonebook' and not supporting your point. You go from:
Another commenter below posted a take decrying it as a case of classic excessive modern SJW-type media cancel culture crusades gone too far. This is not just a wrong take, it's a flagrantly wrong take and a significant misunderstanding of the "read between the lines" of everyone's statements.
To:
Ladies and gentlemen, this statement demonstrates almost exactly what feminists have been saying for years.
It seems your actual argument is not that SJW's have gone too far, but that they clearly have not gone far enough.
To that end I don't think you are playing a game all that different to the likes of Rubiales. As feminists in general have managed to poison their own position and ideology quite heavily. I can only have so much sympathy for people decrying men and their 'old boys clubs' when their alternative is just the inverse of that and worse.
Recognizing the beast he is dealing with, Rubiales could choose to fight or get eaten. He chose to fight. Telling everyone how good he would taste doesn't change anything.
Michael Lind, Eugenicons and the Motte.
Recently, Michael Lind, a notable political commentator and anti-immigration activist, took a stab at what he termed the "eugenicons". The most prominent of which being men like Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Bo Winegard and guys like Richard Hanania, whose face is prominently plastered over the article.
Linds piece paints these "eugenicons" as being not just factually wrong and out of their element with regards to the science, but also politically ineffective. As Lind sees 'race realism' and the libertarian ethos it allegedly expresses itself through these men to be "utterly incompatible" with broadening the appeal of the modern Republican party to working class Americans of all races. Lind, being a bit of a ‘soft’ materialist in the old Marxist sense, has a preferred view of the public as being in a bit of an economic class struggle. Though his view is far more principled and sophisticated than what you generally find among big L Americans Leftists.
Lind’s article is worth a read, and so are the various responses. The two better ones being from Steve Sailer and Brian Chau
Charles Murray did not respond in length, but remarked after reading Linds article that
Given that Lind has proven in the past that he’s a well-read guy, it’s shockingly illiterate about genomics.
Sailer, like Murray, voiced his disappointment that the article by Lind was not composed of anti HBD arguments of higher quality. And took issue with the view Lind expresses with regards to the state of the scientific literature at this time. Maintaining that Lind is far behind the curve on just how heavily the evidence has been falling on the side of HBD in recent years and that he also mischaracterizes some of the HBD positions as strict determinism. Pointing out that social causes have a very clear effect, as he cites his new favorite chart of various fatalities rising in line with the 'happening' of George Floyd.
These are all familiar notes for HBD folks, but they focus on facts and details over the broad stroke narrative. Something Brian Chau points out and extrapolates on. And it’s a worthwhile endeavor, given that someone whose been in the game for as long as Lind is probably not going to have his broader political viewpoint or his fondness for the American working class dissuaded by, as he put it:
right-wing shock jocks poring over statistical tables and publishing their “research” in trade-press books and club newsletters written and edited by their fellow true believers.
It’s a fair position to hold, I suppose, so where does Lind get his ideas from?
As Chau sees it, Lind is working from a presupposition of political representation. That is, Lind sees himself representing the American working class. To that end it is no surprise he dislikes the HBD creed, given it is inherently divisive to the multiracial America. Something modern day classical Marxists have been pointing at for a long while, to little effect as they continue to support mass immigration, unlike Lind.
On that note Lind ties Libertarianism and HBD together, showing just how these two ideas are compatible. As Lind puts it:
The overlap between libertarianism and eugenic conservatism can be considerable. In public, libertarians usually defend their anti-statist creed in terms of individual rights or Benthamite utilitarianism, arguing that a minimal state would produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet eugenic conservatism and libertarianism have often complemented each other. For libertarians at a loss to explain why wealth and power are concentrated in market societies, eugenicons have an answer: Rich people and rich families are genetically superior. And for eugenicons in search of a political program short of radical “ethnostate” proposals, libertarianism provides a second-best solution. The danger that resources will be redistributed from the productive, eugenic rich to the parasitic, dysgenic masses can be minimized by shrinking the state and lowering taxation.
This is certainly an observation. I think it would be easy, like Chau does, to point out that of the 4 big “eugenicons” only Hanania is ostensibly libertarian and otherwise poke holes in it. But I think that draws us away from the truth value of the statement as it relates to Lind and his position as a representative of the working class American. In a broad class interest narrative, there is an obvious pathway where the notion of free market success correlates with ‘superiority’. At the very least, if we value success in modern society, and we place some stock in the notion of heritability of traits, we end up with an undeniable truth. The lower classes are inferior to the superior upper classes. But as it relates to the "eugenicons", again, it’s not necessarily a truth anyone of the 4 mentioned, Sailer, Murray, Winegard and Hanania, are guided by politically.
Lind goes too far then, or does he? You don’t have to to go full send Capitalist Darwinism or whatever. Most people have the self reflection to look at themselves as a less than perfect part of a greater whole. Or that would be my view. Except that is the minority view of a National Socialist. So I think, to the extent American politics exist as is represented in media, Lind might be more correct than not here. And if “eugenicons” are not viscerally racist in their soul, I’d argue they do have to contend with the old ghost of “Social Darwinism”. Merely pointing at The Bell Curve and HBD as a truth can’t qualify as just another feather of truth in the cap of HBD folks. In the words of Eric Turkheimer, this truth could rival the atom bomb.
Chau's criticism of Lind is that Lind is not seeking truth but instead seeking to represent a class of people. To that end, if there is a truth that can harm them it’s not his duty to have that truth guide him but to shield the people from it. They are stronger together, class solidarity and all that. And through that lens Chau contextualizes some of Lind’s more extravagant misrepresentations of HBD ‘truths’. It’s simply not Lind's job to represent this truth. Lind is representing a class of people. Protecting both its class interest as well as its dignity, at the very least.
Beyond this you will have to read Chau’s article as he takes broader issue with the worldview Lind expresses.
On the whole I find Lind’s position to be stronger than I had suspected after seeing the "eugenicons" pile on him for the various errors and factual misrepresentations made. So long as Lind is accurately representing the people he feels with, his position will remain strong. Particularly since it is dealing with immediate problems that are likely to result from the HBD 'atom bomb' being released on the public. I had always assumed that biological truths would lead people towards something like ethno-nationalist 'democratic' socialism. But I’m now more willing to believe that America could surprise me if the bomb was dropped on them.
On that note it is not clear to me if Lind’s representing of the multiracial American working class is for its protection or ours.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
Generally special interest group characters fail since they take power away from the player.
The super special trans character can't be seen, as you point out, as anything negative. Now you, as a character in the game, have to contend with, to use old terminology, a special snowflake in your game world. A Mary Sue of sorts. You know this character is not going to betray you or anything like that. You are supposed to like them. That's the sole reason they are there. Because of that they will always lord over your world.
It's made even worse by the fact that since the trans character is almost always a self insert of some trans author, they get an elaborate backstory. They are painted out as being perfect and sympathetic. They are now contending with you as a main character in the story. This is bad and stupid.
To borrow from the old Diversity Propaganda playbook on how blacks were integrated: When you want to normalize something and integrate it into the ingroup of others, make it passive, harmless and subservient. When that has been established, make them valuable and endearing.
The ultimate version of this is making the trans person a love interest for the main character. Not that the MC needs to reciprocate. It might even be better to not give the player a choice to reciprocate. But making it clear that the trans character desires the MC gives the MC all the power they need to feel responsible for that character. Which is very powerful.
To that end you need to make the character look more like a trans persons anime profile pic on twitter than what a trans person who cares a lot about trans representation in gaming actually looks like in real life.
For a tl;dr: you make a lot of fine points, but for some reason tie them to 'race'. Most of these anti-racist arguments therefor end up not being anti-racist at all. They seem more like general individual based introspection arguments. For what it's worth I'm not against any of them specifically, I'm just not sure what they have to do with typical 'racist' thinking which, most of the time, deals with groups and averages.
As an example, from "Taking Responsibility":
Deterministic thinking is not specific to 'racist' thinking. Typical 'I can't' most often heard from children doing homework is a great example of this. On top of that the argument falls over itself when you flip it around. Believing yourself to be destined to lose is bad. But believing yourself to be destined to win is good. It's obvious from this that the 'bad' here is not determinism but self defeatism.
As for your personal maximum capacity for achievement, the argument you make falls to similar issues. The point about 'maximum genetic capacity'(my paraphrasing) is not about you personally, it's about you in relation to others. The reason Usain Bolt could become the world's fastest sprinter is not because of his magic training or the sand in Jamaica. The guy started training very late at 17 and his diet consisted mostly of McNuggets straight from McDonalds. It was his DNA. If you thought you had a genuine chance in competing against him, you were stupid. But if you liked running track, why let that stop you? Just run to see what you can do. The problem here is not 'race' and minimizing it changes nothing. It's our lizard brain competitive spirit trying to outcompete Dunbar's number when in reality it is competing against 7 billion people.
As for "Information and Stereotyping"
Making conceptual arguments about this seems rather pointless. We don't need conceptual arguments to figure out that blacks commit more crime than do whites. On top of that, making the argument individualized further leads us astray from the utility of 'race'. Since 'race and crime' generally refers to populations, not an individual instance in someones life.
To meet your conceptualized argument head on: If I am walking alone at night and there is a guy in a hoody and worn out jeans walking towards me, I'm not going to think he is mugging me. Ever. Because that sort of thing has never happened where I live. Ever. But if you live in the USA in an average black neighborhood, my instincts would be potentially dangerously wrong because the chances are no longer 0. Because average white Scandinavian town and average black USA town are not the same. To that end race is useful. One town is average USA black, the other is average Scandinavian white. You can comb through the finer details but race is still there as a fact of life. Ignoring it would be stupid.
As for "Policy"
The reason affirmative action is bad is because it is trying to fit an unfit population. There is nothing wrong with affirmatively actioning a bunch of otherwise neurotypical 140 IQ people into colleges. They would probably do very well and better the school and society. The problem arises when the population is on average at 85 IQ and demand for 'diversity' outstrips supply of college material people.
If you want 'diversity' there is no magic process that can fix your problem with blacks. Without a mechanism that selects unfit people to meet your 'diversity' quota, you will not meet the quota. Without a program that is designed to cater to these unfit people, you will not see many of them graduate. Without unfair you get less than 1% black at the elite level. With those kind of numbers you will be seeing 'calls to action' against your racist policies.
As for "Immigration"
We are again using conceptual arguments. Why make those arguments imprecise? Here's one: lets have an immigration system that only imports good people we will all personally like who will also benefit the economy and save a child and/or pet in need.
OK, we don't have that. What do we have? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00148-017-0636-1
We have information. For some reason, despite race being allegedly irrelevant, geographically isolated population groups perform differently when placed in the same environment. We can theorize a system of import that weeds out the 'bad'. But that still leaves the fact that there are so many bads that they need extensive weeding out when compared to 'Western' people.
What I don't understand is, why do you care so much to ignore this sort of information? You could make a similar case for ignoring anything. Just figure out some proxy for it and voila. But that doesn't change the reality behind it. The kind of systems that functionally racially discriminate against blacks are conducive to healthy and happy western societies. You can dress them up how you want, it doesn't change the fact that people notice. And it's not the white identitarians.
More options
Context Copy link