hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This is a great article, well worth the full read. Especially in context with the comments written about it here. It seems the author hits the nail on the head when he talks about the elusive nature of the point of contention and the issue he has with getting 'liberals' to engage with it. He is also conveniently vindicated as being correct as this issue is exemplified in the comments here post after post. Where every manner of framing the issue away from reality is tried. It would be a miss for me to not highlight those comments if not for the convenience of the columns author already doing it for me:
At this stage, short of some grand conspiracy of white people “to keep the black man down” (the Woke explanation) the cause of group disparities must come down to some combination of the following sources:
Genetic group differences stemming from human bio-diversity, as attested to by a growing mountain of evidence,
Deep historically situated cultural differences that are almost impossible to change,
Recently developed behavioral differences that cannot be modified with tools we consider "liberal" and acceptable in the modern world.
On paper, and when I talk to them personally, many of the liberal-centrist types tell me they understand this problem. They have read Steven Pinker, they have read the Bell Curve, and they know the issues with Affirmative Action and disparate impact in the context of persistent group differences. Their eyes are open. They've got this one.
So what is their solution? More individualism and objective standards for achievement. We need to go back to color blindness, the legal fiction of equality, and judging everyone like a blank slate even though they are not. We can just call that a "meritocracy" as we did in the 1990s. Let the chips fall where they may, and be done with the matter once and for all.
Perhaps this is a great “debate club idea”, but who is going to own the consequences if indeed we were to tear down all disparate impact regulations, equal opportunity programs, and affirmative action? I don’t think an appeal to "meritocracy" would cut it.
Many commenters here seem to have missed this part of the article and what follows. It would be much better for everyone if they didn't. Though I would suspect the problem they have with it is hard for them to verbalize. Since any movement in this direction on their part is an explicit admission that they are willing to break baseline social taboos. To stand up in person and say you don't care about starving children in Africa because you don't recognize borders, would be an obvious low status signal. You would have to be stupid or of low moral character to say such a thing. The same would also be true for saying you don't see a problem with extremely poor black educational attainment or medical conditions like obesity and heart disease, because you don't see race. You would have to be a fool or the most brilliant of racist comedians to earnestly say such a thing in public under your own name.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm sure the author of the article feels the same way about your comment.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Reading the article and then this comment makes me wonder if you skipped the article.
To make a long story short, the 'truly excellent' want minorities at Harvard. Now what do we do with your 'liberal position'?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Illegal immigration enforcement had its worst years since the establishment of ICE in 2003.
Legal immigration fell during COVID but otherwise it only slightly decreased.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
"MAGA" from the 2016 campaign trail or "MAGA" from the 'legal immigration is actually good for the economy' that Trump started parroting in office after one too many a meeting with the fine folks from the Heritage Foundation?
"MAGA" is an empty political slogan that one too many 'right wing' American pours all their hopes and dreams into. It's vague enough to fit all of them. Vote for change!
To give a factual example of why "MAGA" is a marketing thing and not a political thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown
"MAGA", if it ever was a thing, caved in, got on all fours and kissed the ring of TPTB. No wall, no deportations, more immigration. That has been its state ever since.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Power might not change but who benefits from it does, depending on who has it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm reminded of the old clip of an alleged 'jewish Democrat candidate' gleefully contextualizing how many white men are killing themselves.
In ingroup/outgroup terms, if my enemy is dying, I can only shrug my shoulders. Is it by his own hand? Wow, how curious, I can't imagine why he would do that. I can't contextualize his death in a wider context. It's just happening. Probably due to some failure on his part, obviously. There's not wider causal chain at play, no broad narrative to examine. Because if there's one thing I know, it's that my people are innocent, and my enemy is guilty and deserves it.
Now, if a member of my ingroup dies, that's not their fault or mine. There's a wider context, a system, that's at fault. We need to do something!
That's at least the rhetorical implication of noticing this event. Maybe now something will be done since the 'people with power' will take up arms for one of their own dying. In that sense, this is a joyous occasion for the 'have nots'. The more 'elite' children that die, the more their parents are forced to take up the common cause of others who have had to live in with such conditions for much longer. Conditions that people like Susan Wojcicicki had helped create, facilitate and ignore for a long time now. Some might even be waiting for any brave soul to take aim at more direct causal factors, like the Sacklers. Why do they get to exist free of the conditions they inflict on others? Not only that, they get to profit from it.
I think posts like this help illuminate where one stands in the hierarchy of everything. Those with power can place landmines in your environment, and if you or yours step on them you just get to suffer whilst they get to profit. The worst part is that your only recourse as a 'have not' is to hope that someone with power also steps on a landmine so that they just might lead your cause forward. A sort of validation of your suffering. That's it. Patriotism/national identity doesn't play a part, voting doesn't play a part, 'the voices of the many' doesn't play a part. The statistical significance, the economic impact, none of it matters even if it is so often acted like it does matter in so many different contexts. In the modern western democracy these things don't matter at all. The only common cause people can find is suffering. In clear terms: If a powerful jew isn't suffering your problems, you will just have to live with them.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
My point would be: If "strong HBD" is right, what does being 'racist' even mean, and why would it be bad to be one?
It's not just that we can be discriminatory against people with intellectual disabilities. We actually are. We make rules, laws and train professionals to deal with all sorts of people who fail to meet whatever standard society sets. Does that mean we are 'racist' against those people? Should we let people with Down Syndrome play with power tools on a construction site because we are not 'racist' and don't want to perpetuate 'harmful' hiring practices?
Sadly, for the 'Third Side', it finds itself falling into the very same trap it laments the 'good' side falling into.
Steve Sailer isn't a racist. He's just correct about the wrong things. Calling him a racist is just an appeal to the mercy of the 'good' side.
The 'good' really want to replace Cpt. Sully with Cpt. Shaniqua. Sailer is not wrong or racist for pointing this out.
The 'good' dress up their efforts that pervert the meritocratic process and discriminate against the more qualified to lift up brown people to a level they don't deserve by using pretty looking brown ladies in advertisements. Sailer correctly points this out and mocks it. He is not racist for doing so unless, of course, you presuppose the browns to be better than they actually are. Which makes you not just racist but also wrong.
The 'Third Side', spearheaded by the likes of TracingWoodgrains, can't handle this. I don't know why. Though I'd theorize oversocialization, social status and the trauma of watching Civil Rights propaganda took their toll on them like it did everyone else. In any case, if I had to read 5 paragraphs of excuses and 'well actually' every time a racist had been proven right before I could allow myself to acknowledge it, I'd start thinking inward as to why I'm doing this to myself. Because this entire rigamarole is absurd. It would take less effort to get through the cognitive dissonance of a 15 year old.
I can accept liars who just ignore these things or tow the party line to not lose their jobs. At least they know what they are. But the 'Third Side' is not that. It genuinely believes it's honest and standing up for truth. When in reality truth rests with the likes of Sailer. There's nothing 'more right' about not mocking the perverted and shameful nature of modern DEI. There's no respectability in claiming that, whilst the Emperor might not have any clothes, it might be because he was sleepwalking, and not because he is vain and has poor judgement. It's just groveling at the feet of those with power.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This just sounds like excuse making for a respectable 'grey' position. In any other case we'd be able to recognize that there are plenty of people with strong beliefs that fail in living up to their beliefs every single day of their lives. Be that not going to church, drinking alcohol or any other example you prefer. And we could all recognize that this failure does not need to, in any way, deter these people from pushing their beliefs on society. Be that legislatively or otherwise. But because the red tribe correctly sees the likes of Omar as obvious 'enemies', we, the respectables, have to distance ourselves from that in some way.
I only say this because the excuses in use here are so poor I can't see what else it could be. As an illustrative example, a nationalist in Poland could say 'I'm Polish first, Christian second' and we could all recognize that the ethnic and the religious, whilst often closely related, are not the same and no one would feel the need to question his anti-abortion pro-Christian social policies in Poland just because he said this. Yet somehow, in the case of Omar, we act not just as if her saying this is meaningful, we drag red tribe terminology like 'radical Islam' into our writing and purposefully distance ourselves from it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr 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?
Trying to not lose sight of the point you're making because of history not gelling with it in all instances, as many are squabbling about below:
Looking at the changes technological progress had on the world as gradual, it allowed more and more people to be informed of and worry about things like abolition and whatever else instead of being starved and homeless fending off the barbarians, as an overdramatic example. In that sense it's undoubtably true that technology is a necessary factor to facilitate whatever social change. I am assuming that's the gist of what you are saying?
On the other hand I don't believe you can tie technology as a cause for why some policy or opinion reigned over another. Technology can only serve to free the mind towards whatever can dominate it when the last immediate threat is taken care of. To say what dominates when, where and why might certainly be a product of technology in some sense, but calling it that makes the term so broad it becomes most everything. Why not enslave more rather than less? Technology can't answer that question.
However, if we look at the history of the world as the genetic expression of those who utilize technology to free their will unto their environment, we have more tools at our disposal to pontificate on the when, where and why.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
And not for us, thank heavens.
Very few antisemitic alt rightists ever affirmed higher Ashkenazi intelligence.
Every single one of them did that I know of. And I was neck deep in this stuff. I am still to encounter anyone in that sphere who thinks ashkenazi jews anything other than high IQ.
If they didn’t explicitly deny it they ignored it or took the view that nepotism / in-group loyalty still explained the vast majority or all overrepresentation.
Like I went over in my comment:
it was very rare to see any refutation of jewish IQ being high. Most parroting the 115 IQ myth. The primary argument, much like the nazis of old, being that these smart jews were taking up positions of power in white societies and using it to the detriment of whites and the benefit of jews.
Jews being smart and jews being overrepresented due to nepotism is not a mutually exclusive thing. In fact it makes a lot of sense for nepotism to work better than it otherwise would when you are the group you prefer has a high IQ. Since then the nepotism is more functional and less obvious.
And I would reject that criticism of the theory is recent - the most infamous deboonking of overrepresentation being meritocratic (Unz’ Myth of American Meritocracy) was published in 2012.
Unz did not dispute jewish IQ to any relevant extent. Making the assumption that it's 109. He just posited that jews are overrepresented even when accounting for IQ.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's such a poor strawman I feel it manages to light itself on fire.
At some point, we're going to get bigger studies, and what then ?
Then we have the results of those bigger studies? What then? Seriously what even is this comment?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
There's a long running tradition of certain anti-semitic right-wing types trying to discredit Ashkenazi IQ scores.
It's fairly recent and I find your post to exude the kind of 'boo outgroup' pathologism you imply is afflicting others.
The OG Nazis didn't like IQ tests yet found jews to be intelligent but bad people. Early neo-nazism copied most of that.
As far as groups who actively believe in HBD and IQ stuff go, during the 'Alt-Right' era, if you can call it that, it was very rare to see any refutation of jewish IQ being high. Most parroting the 115 IQ myth. The primary argument, much like the nazis of old, being that these smart jews were taking up positions of power in white societies and using it to the detriment of whites and the benefit of jews.
The only big contradicting instance to that narrative was old newspaper clippings being posted relating to a jewish SAT cheating thing, but to what end that was brought up wasn't exactly clear. The big narrative described above came first. Why bother to undermine that?
The article by Vox is one of the only ones I can find that takes direct issue with the whole jewish IQ thing. And even then Vox was always a kind of outsider with his own thing going on.
There has, however, been a lot of recent discussion on this topic, now that the 'Alt-Right' era is over and some of its bulkier narratives can be discarded. And, maybe, just maybe, because the topic is relevant, interesting, and a big thorn in the side of many a current right wing star like Jordan Peterson. Who are trying to juggle justifications of jewish power and group interest whilst simultaneously preaching individualism to whites of European ancestry.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The fact that there are members of my ingroup who are better than me is only a problem if they don't see me as a part of their ingroup. That's one of the fundamental reasons why many white identitarians invoke implicit and explicit pleas for racial loyalty and lament acts of racial disloyalty, as is the case with past critiques of 'the middle class' or the now white liberal 'elites'.
If you are asking why you should ingroup one group over another it's a simple matter of making friends with people who don't hate you. It would certainly be much harder to specifically ingroup whites over someone else were it not for the high amount of animosity directed towards whites by the other relevant racial groups.
All in all I find your skepticism very odd. Almost like it assumes that HBD came before ingroup bias in whites could even exist. When in reality whites who like themselves and other whites gravitated to the facts found as demonstrable proof of the thing they already knew. Or that HBD became a beacon of truth for many whites who otherwise would not have felt the need to group up with other whites were it not for the relentless blood libel and verbalized hatred directed against them.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The starting point was you saying that people who aren't white nationalists don't "care about white people", and that the reasons for this are sufficiently obvious that even people with drastically different beliefs about the world wouldn't disagree with white nationalism otherwise.
That's not the starting point. Here's what I wrote:
Most people are not "white nationalist" because the term is actively marginalized. Most people, in fact, don't like to label themselves as anything at all. They just have their beliefs and opinions and look for the best representation for those beliefs and opinions they can find. Sure, you can care about white people and not associate with some label, but to actually care about white people you have to act like a 'white nationalist', for a lack of a better term, in some form. Ingroup bias expresses itself very uniformly.
How you can so drastically misrepresent this is beyond me.
You're now talking about how allowing even highly selective non-white immigration could result in intermarriage that results in...
Not could, does.
the white population ending up with some fraction of a percent of east-asian ancestry? I'm not seeing how this is harmful, and I certainly don't think it is so self-evidently harmful that even people who disagree with you realize it is harmful.
The white population, at a specific point in time, will end up with that fraction of a percent assuming the conditions previously discussed. Does the immigration then stop? No, it just stays the same and that fraction of a percent, that used to not be there but now is, will continue to grow because of it.
Meanwhile, on a timeframe like that there are far more important factors to focus on.
There very well might be but regardless of that, the existence of things more or less important does not change the fact that a constant drip of one ethnic group into another is a compounding problem.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That depends on birth rates, intermarriage rates, and the actual rate of immigration from different nations and races. Non-hispanic whites and asians currently have the same birth rate, which presumably means east-asians specifically are even lower.
It actually doesn't. Unless you are proposing an immigration policy of a % based immigrant population and zero intermarriage rates, the constant stream of foreign DNA into the native population will change it.
Lets define, for the sake of argument, the current white population to be 100% white from now on. Lets take that population and say that only asians are allowed to live with it as a 5% of the total population... Any white making a family with an asian is a white not making a family with another white. That's a minus. Every child of theirs that makes a family with a white is another minus. The effect of every single mix raced person is compounding.
As you correctly point out, hapas can look very European. An asian/European quadroon certainly doesn't carry as much visual baggage as a white/black quadroon. But how do you count those people? Are they white now? Does that mean we can bring in more immigrants to maintain our 5%?
Unless you envision a world where the white population can grow endlessly, the presence of a constant stream of foreign DNA will inevitably change the white population.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
And a lot of them are not.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I asked for policies that could maintain white populations. A constant stream of immigration is a constant dilution of the population that has to suffer it. That's not maintaining white populations but slowly eroding them.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
But they are not breeding more, just like every other population group that's dealing with modernity right now. So people who actually care would seek solutions in the real world, rather than fiddling with rhetorical sneering to excuse their lack of care, like you are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
My answer to that would be 'motivated reasoning'.
Most arguments aren't 'real', for a lack of a better term. They're just stepping stones to get to the promised land, which any actual believer already knows is real. The whole game of 'arguments' is to help the unbelievers, or yourself in days of need, to that place. In other words, arguments are traced back from the thing you already know is true.
I'm not saying there aren't vegans who are vegans for some reason other than the animal suffering, and that those guys aren't making data driven arguments in some sense that's disconnect from the moral impetus driving many vegans, but, in my experience, those are not the vegans we are talking about in the OP.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If what you meant to say was “advocate for white people”, “donate to white nationalist organizations”, or “advocate against affirmative action”, you could have said that.
That's not what I meant to say. There are certainly a lot of people in the world that do not care about white people.
From my perspective it seems like you chose a deliberately milquetoast word to make people seem crazy for not liking white nationalists.
I am at a loss for what to do for you, if that's the case.
To maybe rephrase what was being said; Vegans care about animals. I know they do because they don't eat animals as an act of protest against the practice of farming and killing animals for food. I might 'care' about animals in some way. I certainly don't like the idea of torturous factory farming. But how much do I care? I certainly am still eating animal meat and produce. Judging by action, I certainly do not care as much as a some type of vegan.
In a sense you can say you care about something if you feel like you do. But that, to me, feels like we are just debasing the word 'care' to a point where it is meaningless. For example, if you told me you cared a lot about your dog, but acted indifferent to it at best and barely walked it to a point where it was obviously having issues, I'd conclude you are either lying or that your words don't mean very much, or that you are stupid to a point where you don't understand that you need to walk your dog, and that this needed explaining to you.
In any case, I don't think people are "crazy" for neglecting their dogs. I would, however, feel justified in concluding that their own description of themselves as caring about their dog is inaccurate at best.
The difference is that HBD folks have to own it. Many academics throughout the years have done so for decades at great professional and personal risk. Yes, the truth is ugly and the fallout of widespread recognition and actualization of it might be even more ugly. But that's the fight being had.
Versus the likes of James Lindsey who simply ignore the inevitable fallout of their advocacy for colorblind meritocracy, acting as if the negative consequences simply won't happen. Not that he or the likes of him would ever allow the conversation to even get to that point, as that would be too great of an admission. No, the 'liberals' act not just like they have the most functional solution, but the most morally correct one. Like the author points out, it's as if they can't see that the system they are advocating for might end up shipping a bunch of melted ice cream. They refuse to even engage with the proposition. Instead they just assert that they are shipping ice cream to everyone the same way so it's fair.
Contrast this complete lack of self criticism with the way they engage with topics like HBD, where suddenly every little detail becomes functionally impossible to deal with. They don't actually have to engage with the truth proposition of HBD, they can just ignore it through the cover that any real world implementation derived from HBD is impossible, even if the results would not necessarily differ in any way compared to the 'liberal' one, the only difference being moral palatability, which is really only a cover for social acceptability. 'At least we are not nazis!' when in function they are shipping the same melted ice cream.
More options
Context Copy link