site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   28354 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

British RAF describes applicants as "useless white male pilots" in leaked emails.

In a bid to increase its diversity, an organized and systematic discrimination of white men was implemented. Leaked emails from RAF staff include vehemently racist and sexist remarks, reports have revealed.

Under a subject line entitled: "BOARDING PROFILE", a squadron leader wrote:

"I noted that the boards have recently been predominantly white male heavy, if we don't have enough BAME and female to board then we need to make the decision to pause boarding and seek more BAME and female from the RF. I don't really need to see loads of useless white male pilots, lets get a focussed as possible, I am more than happy to reduce boarding if needed to have a balanced BAME/female/Male board."

The emails date back to 2020. But even before then there had been a focused anti-white anti-male effort to discriminate against white men in a bid to get women and browns into service. The full article linked above gives further account to the full extent of the conspiracy that kept multiple white men applicants out of service and further discriminated against those that managed to enter. In contrast with women and browns who were fast tracked through the process.

As is noted in the article, the conspiracy was temporarily halted as Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl resigned from her post in protest to what she thought were unlawful hiring practices back in 2022. Voicing disagreement with Air Vice-Marshal Maria Byford, the RAF's head of recruitment. The row led the RAF to claim that no discrimination was taking place, as a Ministry of Defense inquiry was launched into the nature of Nicholl's resignation.

"The Royal Air Force will not shy away from the challenges we face building a Service that attracts and recruits talent from every part of the UK workforce. We will continue doing everything we can to increase our recruiting intake from under-represented groups within the provisions of the law."

And at the time the evidence for 'strict' discrimination was lacking. As then leaked emails only noted anti-white sentiment in propaganda creation:

'Gents, do any of you have a "pilot who is preferably not a white male" who would like to be the "RAF" face at a press event for the release of Top Gun 2? Shy guys get no cakes so shout quick as offer has also gone out to other units.'

Nicholl's replacement, Group Captain Dole, saw no issue with furthering the conspiracy of active anti-white discrimination and went on to be awarded an OBE in the 2022 New Years Honours List. As the RAF proudly met its target of 20% women, 10% browns. Thankfully a part of the racist and discriminatory process by which the goal was reached is now out in the open.

Contrasting this anti-white conspiracy with last years report that China was "luring" UK pilots to train its pilots, what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?

Contrasting this anti-white conspiracy with last years report that China was "luring" UK pilots to train its pilots, what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?

This is completely pathetic. A pilot feels, perhaps not unreasonably, disadvantaged by this one policy, so that's grounds on which to throw your toys out of the pram and work for a state which, for most RAF pilots one imagines, behaves in a manner completely antithetical to your values?

  • -23

This is literally the plot of Shakespeare's Coriolanus - "discriminated-against military leader defects to erstwhile-enemies" is so common as to be a trope throughout history.

If all states adopt values antithetical to your own, I think it's a reasonable response to abandon loyalty to nation-states and instead prioritize other loyalties - and if the Chinese give you enough money to set your family up in comfort and style, you might choose them over the nation that discarded you.

I am actually surprised at how well right leaning military men have cooperated with the system. The war in Afghanistan ended with large numbers of migrants comming to Europe. Afghans are the second most overrepresented minority in crime stats in Sweden. The war flooded Europe with heroin. What exactly was going to be conserved by that war? What socially conservative agenda was ever going to be promoted by that war? Yet, thousands of right leaning white men volunteered to die or get their legs blown off to defend the military industrial complex and globalization. The war in Iraq caused a million migrants to come to Europe and has been a disaster for the Middle East and Europe. I can't see any socially conservative goal ever have been achieved through that war. Yet, thousands of right leaning white men got killed in Iraq in order for their kids to be in a class full of refugees.

Libya ended with a million migrants a year coming to Europe and a jihadist trained by the UK government killing 22 girls at an Ariana Grande concert.

Taiwan is important because the globalists wanted to dump wages by moving electronics production to a lower wage country. If China tries to take Taiwan, the counterattack that gets mowed down will be manned by conservative white men. Towards the end, a few elite forces will walk over the bodies of dead polish Catholics in order to raise the pride flag over reconquered Taiwan. In the movie, the white men will be replaced by women of colour.

Israel/Palestine is a conflict between those who want Arabs to live where their grandparents live and those who want millions of arabs to move. The same conservatives who say they are opposed to arab migrations will be more fanatically zionist than what is allowed on Israeli TV.

I am nor surprised that the western militaries are skeptical of conservative white men. The shocking part is how loyal they have been.

Was it Orwell who said that phrases like "perhaps not unreasonably" are like ink clouds for indefensible political writing?

Saying it about your opponent's point feels a lot less egregious.

A pilot feels, perhaps not unreasonably, disadvantaged by this one policy, so that's grounds on which to throw your toys out of the pram and work for a state which, for most RAF pilots one imagines, behaves in a manner completely antithetical to your values?

I'm less familiar with the UK than the US, but my understanding of the comment was that after 50-60 years of destruction of national cohesion/sentiment/what have you turning what would have been a calling that a citizen takes up to preform their duty into a mere job that an atomized individual takes, this could be the trigger for said atomized individual to lose the last of their belief in the system and finally try to maximize market value.

When I was 16, I and every other boy in my RS class was made to stand up and recieve chastisement by our then RS teacher, who proclaimed that the world was made for us, by people like us (my school was 99% white working class), that we had it the easiest out of any group of people and that we had a duty to right this imbalance. This is not my lived experience (though I attribute that to my undiagnosed and untreated autism), and it is broadly not the lived experience of young men, who have worse outcomes than their fathers and are expected their bear the dwindling of their piece of the socioeconomic pie and the societal narrative that this is not so with a smile on their face.

And frankly, given the events of the pandemic, I am not so convinced that there is a large divide between the British and Chinese states.

I am not so convinced that there is a large divide between the British and Chinese states.

Well, where you complained (not unreasonably I might add, that is a bit ridiculous) about an unfair upbraiding by your RS teacher for your privilege, ethno-religious oppression in China entails internment, sterilisation, forced labour and physical maltreatment (even torture) in those camps at the hands of state authorities. This really is only a comment someone living in the freedom and prosperity of the West could make. Young Britons have it bad? Hardly anywhere near as bad as toiling in a Chinese coal mine or electronics factory.

Young Britons have it bad? Hardly anywhere near as bad as toiling in a Chinese coal mine or electronics factory.

Have you heard of the Rotherham scandal? I'd say that being discriminated against by the government (which white working class girls are) carries significant costs and problems.

The thing about this, we are constantly told that the tiniest hint of bias against certain races (blacks and jews in the US) is massively dangerous and a slippery slope to literal genocide. Meanwhile, individual hatred and institutional bias against whites is slowly but surely getting stronger, yet there are people (often the same people warning us about how dangerous other types of bias are) who tell us essentially, well they're not literally sending you to death camps yet so what are you whining about? Suck it up and quit being such a scaredy-cat.

Why shouldn't we assume that this type of bias is exactly as unjust and dangerous as any other type? Exactly when will it be okay to do something about it more serious than complaining on the internet?

we are constantly told that the tiniest hint of bias against certain races (blacks and jews in the US) is massively dangerous and a slippery slope to literal genocide

Yes, woke leftists say that, and they are wrong. Copying them doesn’t make that argument any better.

Exactly when will it be okay to do something about it more serious than complaining on the internet?

When they do something worse to you than marginally reducing your chances of getting a job.

  • -11

Yes, woke leftists say that, and they are wrong.

They are wrong about white gentiles. And specifically wrong about people who aren't "pre-judging" anymore, they are merely "judging".

Leftists are likely correct about themselves.

Yes, woke leftists say that, and they are wrong. Copying them doesn’t make that argument any better.

If they're wrong, stop letting them get away with saying it.

Of course, you can't, because you aren't in charge. But the fact that neither you nor anyone else can stop them is, unfortunately, significant. It means the society and the structures we have now can't solve this problem, so changes are going to need to be made.

the tiniest hint of bias against certain races (blacks and jews in the US) is massively dangerous and a slippery slope to literal genocide

I don't think you see much of that in mainstream circles, seems a very online sort of thing, but where you do see it I agree that it is hyperbolic and unhelpful.

well they're not literally sending you to death camps yet so what are you whining about?

Much more than 'not literally sending you to death camps' there isn't that much serious bias against whites, not in the UK anyway. There is some 'diversity hiring' (but the available evidence seems to suggest that there are strong effects of in-group bias in hiring, which mostly of course favours whites, so on net even in the direct hiring process I think whites do fine, before one even considers broader questions of socio-economic inequality etc.) but it's hardly sufficient as to constitute a major or even minor concern for any aspiring professional in Britain. This RAF stuff has been newsworthy precisely because it is unusual for such vigorous policies to be in place.

  • -10

but the available evidence seems to suggest that there are strong effects of in-group bias in hiring, which mostly of course favours whites,

Which available evidence suggests that?

Fictitious applications were made to nearly 3,200 real jobs, randomly varying applicants’ minority background, but holding their skills, qualifications and work experience constant. On average, 24% of applicants from the majority group (white people of British origin) received a positive response from employers, but only 15% of ethnic minorities received a positive response.

https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/news-events/news/new-csi-report-on-ethnic-minority-job-discrimination/

Of course, that assumes discrimination is a result of positive in group prejudice or a result of history with minorities. That is, you stole a base.

levels of discrimination have remained unchanged since the 1960s

This is already not passing the smell test.

I am unable to find the study. It seems to be self-published by the department, but the PDF is unavailable.

More comments

(but the available evidence seems to suggest that there are strong effects of in-group bias in hiring, which mostly of course favours whites, so on net even in the direct hiring process I think whites do fine, before one even considers broader questions of socio-economic inequality etc.)

Oh what do you know, it's actually biased in whites' favour somehow. You know, unless you are in the armed forces, or the police, or the media, or working for the royals, and so on.

before one even considers broader questions of socio-economic inequality etc.

Etc in this instance means "other things that don't actually matter and only distract from the issue of blatant racism that is somehow not a problem when it targets white men, but is otherwise the Greatest Sin In The Universe!". I'd love to see the available evidence though, it's not that recent civil service kerfuffle where that guy reckons there must be bias because the demographics don't specifically match those of the population is it?

Oh what do you know, it's actually biased in whites' favour somehow. You know, unless you are in the armed forces, or the police, or the media, or working for the royals, and so on.

The first article is about a case where an employment tribunal ruled the discrimination was unlawful and awarded compensation to the victim. The third article, unless I am misreading it, doesn't quite support your point, either.

And you think the police committing unlawful discrimination to the extent a tribunal was held and they were required to compensate the victim means they are not discriminating? If I had just linked a guy suing them you'd say it hadn't been tried yet. And if you read to the end of that third link, you would learn that the royal staff now complies with the equality act 'in principle and practice', meaning they now use the hiring quotas. That's why it's at the end of the article, so you know the royals have confessed their sins and can be counted amongst the holy - and then the final sentence tells you that this is provisional, and their good grace will be stripped if they slip up.

“Had he not been such an exceptional candidate he may not even have suspected anything was wrong and this unlawful and unacceptable selection process may have been allowed to continue.

Not every discrimination case is provable. If they managed to be egregious enough about it that they got caught, there are certainly a bunch of other cases where the evidence wasn't as strong and they did it without getting caught.

I would say that the British State currently has little room to commit any of the atrocities you describe. We have no heavy industry, as most of it was shipped offshore to East Asia and other places around the world and thus no Lithium Miners to abuse for the benefit of the global market. The worst crime that can be attributed on this basis is that the government leaves people who cannot adapt to the information economy to rot.

Morever, outside of the post WW2 waves of migrants, the UK has no immediate different ethnic group to victimise - white welshmen and scotsmen have more in common genetically with englishmen than they otherwise wish to pretend. If there was perhaps a group of Zorostrians who lived in Cornwall/Devon at the turn of the 20th century we may very well have had recent state oppression on british soil.

What about the Irish?

Ireland is not really considered "British" soil in the popular conciousness, NI is seen by everyone barring loyalists as this colonial venture we didn't really clear up. Much of what happens in the UK news cycle doesn't consider NI and May's coalition government was the first time many people actually learned about the separate but equal part of their state. In addition, most of the oppression was done by the loyalist ulster government, who are neither truly Irish nor mainland British, rather than the westminster government.

The oppression was done by loyalists, but the specific atrocities, Balymurphy and Bloody Sunday, were done by the British Army and the Parachute Regiment in particular. Operation Demetrius, when 2000 men were interned, was a British Army operation, so is definitely the fault of Westminster.

Things happen slowly; then suddenly. The whole reason why PRC treats its minorities poorly is Han supremacist world view. That isn’t that different compared to the view that white men are less than (ie everyone else is superior).

So right now being a who’re person in England ain’t the worst thing. But right now is slowly. We may see suddenly soon (or we may not).

I’d love to hear more about Han supremacy and Chinese minority oppression.

I know a girl from work that is Chinese. The minority groups come up every now and then since one of them are from her hometown. I get no sense of supremacy in these conversations. If anything, it’s more of an attitude like “my hometown has this neat minority with cool food and traditional clothes. They have dance troupes and dress differently at official functions.” Kind of like a unqiue little touristy thing.

The whole Han supremacy thing seems more like a Reddit meme or a porting over of “white supremacy” to China. I’m sure there is disparate impact. And 99% of the communist party are Han. But it doesn’t come across as some systematic oppression. Not at all.

Do you believe the reports of mass repression happening in the Xinjiang region in the past decade+ to be exaggerated or fabricated from whole cloth? Do you expect a random Chinese expat (?) to have accurate knowledge about the inner workings of her country, and to share that knowledge publicly?

It's June 4th tomorrow, why don't you ask her about that on Monday to calibrate how much she's willing to say about China's recent history.

I do believe there is mass repression of the Uighur Muslims. I do think its comparable to the Israel/Palestine situation. Not the same. But comparable. And I think the Isralies are assholes when it comes to Palestine. But they have their reasons.

With israel though, there is a massive amount of media out there explaining exactly why their policies are necessary and/or minimizing what the Israelis are doing. That’s where the comparison ends.

To be clear. I don’t support Israel or China using state power to indiscriminately punish vast populations. I just strongly suspect that everyone eats up the Uighur story because they’ve been fed a one sided story and it fits the broader interests of the TPTB.

And back to my original comment, I’d love to hear more about this Han supremacy. That sounds a lot broader than this specific draconian crackdown on wahabbi Islam and their wider community.

ethno-religious oppression in China entails internment, sterilisation, forced labour and physical maltreatment (even torture) in those camps at the hands of state authorities.

While I fully believed this as far back as high school, I’m not sure I do anymore. Do you have any solid non-western sources for this?

I know a guy who is from Xinjiang (not a Uighur) and you literally need to present photo ID to enter a grocery store. Even if you don't get out in a camp everyday life is nothing like Britain.

Funny that. During the pandemic you had to show Id to get into grocery stores. And there were certain stores you were banned from altogether.

Clearly dumb, but you're not doing that anymore. They are still doing that in Xinjiang.

I tend to agree with you. The entire internment camp story appeared out of no where 5ish years ago and was convieniently timed with chilling western-Chinese relations.

The Muslim groups in western China that are oppressed used to be on the US list of terrorist organizations. They were quietly removed from that list a few years ago.

I imagine the Chinese apologist line is that these are Islamist extremists that have executed terroist attacks in the past. They’re surpressing them not unlike how Israel deals with Palestinians.

It’s not at all surprising that western liberals would be up in arms about this. Islamophobia is one of their pet issues.

I have no idea what really goes on in western china. But I certainly don’t think that the state department, cia, ngos, and media are telling me the whole truth. In fact we’ve seen them make up lies out of whole cloth many many times when it serves their strategic interest.

The Muslim groups in western China that are oppressed used to be on the US list of terrorist organizations. They were quietly removed from that list a few years ago.

The groups being oppressed there consist of entire ethnicities, not merely the organizations within them that commit terrorist acts. Hamas may be a terrorist organization, but Palestinians aren't, unless we are using the same logic that justified Japanese internment camps in the US.

But I certainly don’t think that the state department, cia, ngos, and media are telling me the whole truth.

The whole truth is that the communists destroyed the traditional religious order in western China, which had made its peace with the state, during the Cultural Revolution, and the vacuum was filled by Wahhabis from the Middle East who came in during the decades of economic liberalization. Newly radicalized elements of the Uyghur population advocated for independence and launched a series of terrorist attacks against Han residents and symbols of the government, after which the CCP concluded that Uyghur culture was the source of the problem and must be utterly destroyed. It was at this point that re-education camps were established, cameras were set up at every street corner, and millions of Han colonists were shipped in from the west to either displace the locals or assimilate them through intermarriage, guarded by a militarized police state that scrutinizes the minutest detail of daily behavior and social media history for signs of radicalization.

The entire internment camp story appeared out of no where 5ish years ago

Perhaps because that is when the camps were opened?

And note that China has not denied the existence of the camps but of course claims they are "vocational centers."

And see here

And note that China has not denied the existence of the camps but of course claims they are "vocational centers."

That's denying the existence of the camps. All that they're "admitting" to is owning buildings.

And note that China has not denied the existence of the camps but of course claims they are "vocational centers."

Is that a direct translation of "labor camps" from English (or perhaps German "Arbeitslager") to Mandarin and back again?

The Chinese name literally translates as the rather long-winded "Educational Center for Training of Professional Skills."

I suppose sometimes you really need to spite your face and your nose is an acceptable price.

So what's the State that has values that are antithetical to the pilot values in this scenario exactly? It's not the one that's racially oppressing them? I'm not sure I understand.

has values that are antithetical to the pilot values

China. Most Britons and doubtless RAF pilots would and do abhor their form of government.

And yet, no Viet Cong ever called me a nigger.

Now how exactly is the Chinese form of government different from the UK in practical terms right now? What is it that you would be defending that is practically different?

And before you make any invocation of the natural freedoms of Englishmen or to democracy, remember this is the UK right now we're talking about. A regime led by a bureaucrat that owes his seat to a coup where people are routinely harassed by the police for speech the government disapproves of.

Now how exactly is the Chinese form of government different from the UK in practical terms right now? What is it that you would be defending that is practically different?

The UK government did not literally weld people into their apartment buildings to enforce covid lockdowns. It has not within living memory shot protesters en masse in the streets or run them over with tanks. It does not throw its citizens into internment camps for believing in the wrong religion. It has not within the last century so thoroughly destroyed its own economy and agricultural production that tens of millions of its people starved to death or sent forth mobs of brainwashed children to smash the graves of their ancestors with sledgehammers or stone their relatives and friends to death on made-up charges to meet a quota.

There are more worlds of difference between the Chinese and British governments than there are in the solar system.

The UK government is committed to replacing the British population with foreigners from all corners of the world, regardless of what voters have to say: https://twitter.com/t848m0/status/1560662923101347840

In 100 years time, judging by present trends, China will be Chinese, albeit old and authoritarian. Britain will be one of several North Atlantic Economic Zones.

It really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of history, what the Iroquois domestic policy was, if they had a coup or whether they had famines from time to time. Does the nation actually exist as an identity? Does it have sovereignty over land? Those are the most important questions.

This is the key issue here. Why does the UK expect British people to show loyalty to a government that is trying to take their country from them, that has no concept of national interests? If you turn a nation-state into an economic zone then don't be surprised if your soldiers become mercenaries.

It has not within living memory shot protesters en masse in the streets or run them over with tanks. It does not throw its citizens into internment camps for believing in the wrong religion.

Not to say that the UK is as bad as China, but this isn't strictly true. 1971 saw British troops shoot dozens of protesters or just people going about their day indiscriminately with Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre. And 2000 people were interned without trial, some being tortured, in Northern Ireland over 4 years starting in 1971.

A regime led by a bureaucrat that owes his seat to a coup

Probably not much continuing here now thar these points have come up in your other comment but this is absurd. This is just how the Westminster system functions and even this party-orientated system has been the norm for coming up on a century. It's called the 1922 Committee for a reason.

When you are on your third PM since the last election there is a real question of democratic legitimacy for their current administration.

With that said, I think there are a lot more complaints about the British system compared to the above (eg lack of freedom of speech).

When you are on your third PM since the last election there is a real question of democratic legitimacy for their current administration.

How so? He has the support of the MPs we all elected on the understanding that they could if they wished replace the PM with another.

Under that logic you would never need another election. After all, you already elected the MPs once.

More comments

Because generally speaking when people voted Tory they were voting for Boris. At a certain point, the ruling regime is so far from what people voted for it would be appropriate to call for a new election.

The only reason Tory’s don’t is because they’d lose.

More comments

I agree the Chinese government is abhorrent but what makes them so much worse compared to the UK government? That is, sure China is worse but the UK government also sucks.

Surely whatever you think about the UK, any plausible faults are on a completely different plane to those of the Chinese state, especially if the complaints you're levying are the aforementioned ones about affirmative action or whatever. Most importantly of all of course is the total absence of any genuine democracy or appreciable freedom of the press in China. Certainly to the extent that assisting China militarily because you were hacked off at a diversity initiative is indefensible.

First, I don’t really value democracy qua democracy. Second, the point isn’t just affirmative action (which is wrong) but actual dislike and disgust toward whites and specifically white males. That hatred will eventually lead to big problems for white males.

So while China sucks, strategical strengthening an enemy may in fact be beneficial. Granted, I wouldn’t strengthen since it believes in Han superiority. But the basic concept of strengthening the enemy of a regime that despises you isn’t a crazy idea.

So while China sucks, strategical strengthening an enemy may in fact be beneficial. Granted, I wouldn’t strengthen since it believes in Han superiority. But the basic concept of strengthening the enemy of a regime that despises you isn’t a crazy idea.

Strengthening foreign enemies of the regime is almost by definition strengthening people who believe in their own superiority over you. If not China, then whom? Russia? ISIS? No outsider is going to help native Britons out of the goodness of their own hearts, and I daresay most of the world still despises them more than their own government does.

but actual dislike and disgust toward whites and specifically white males

This is so terminally online. Are you British? I have literally no idea where you have picked this idea up.

  • -22

Reading the relevant emails posted in the first link.

More comments

This is so terminally online. Are you British? I have literally no idea where you have picked this idea up.

Did you read the OP in this thread? Declaring shocked ignorance isn't the great argument you think it is.

More comments

Here's a counterargument. China does despise white people, they are just better at hiding it due to East Asian cultural norms.

Meanwhile in the West, while its true that white males face serious dejure discrimination, we are still on the top of the social hierarchy in some ways. For example, white men have an easier time finding dates with women. This "revealed preference" of women shows their true beliefs. Even if they might claim to view all races equally, they prefer white men.

So I think you are overestimating hate for white men in the West and underestimating it in China.

Men do not face de jure discrimination, they face de facto discrimination. It is still technically illegal to discriminate against white men.

More comments

Oh I noted that China believes in Han superiority. I don’t doubt the PRC loathe whites. And I wouldn’t buddy up with the PRC. My point is that buddying up with the enemy of the UK may not be a bad idea.

China seems to have a hierarchy of Han->honkees->everyone else. Which puts the white people above the bottom, anyway, unlike in more enlightened countries.

More comments

There is no freedom of the press or genuine democracy in the UK.

The PM is a party man the public did not vote for and people are routinely arrested for disagreeing with government ideology.

The PM is a party man the public did not vote for

Welcome to the Westminster system. The public did not vote for him, but they voted in the MPs that chose him as leader. A slight degree of removal but every action he wants to take (at least in the realm of primary legislation) must be voted upon by the people's elected representatives and those representatives could remove him and his government at any time should they wish to.

people are routinely arrested for disagreeing with government ideology.

Like with @Lizzardspawn before I respond to this I'll ask you a question; is it your genuine belief that the Chinese state does not restrict freedom of speech to any considerably greater degree than the British state?

I'll just try to answer here instead of having two threads for the same points.

I believe that using constitutional means of removing elected representatives in favor of bureaucrats approved by the real power structure is accurately characterized as a coup.

I believe that the current regime in place in the United Kingdom is no less totalitarian than the one in China. I believe it has similarly declared totalitarian designs, when challenged it has made similar exceptions to individual freedoms, and it has no ideological mechanism to stop it from growing more oppressive to those it sees as it's ennemies.

I can name ennemies that have suffered similar repression and harassment. I can name truths that are not allowed to be said. I can name people killed without trial. I can name ethnicities whose property has been seized. I can name statutes that allow the government to break the law. And now I can even name ethnic cleansing initiatives.

I don't like that things are the way they are. But I don't think it's in any way rational to consider the UK a free state. And I would like the case to say it is one still is to be explicitly stated and solid enough it doesn't sound word for word like Chinese propaganda.

I'm glad to be wrong. But why is the UK in any sense of the word freeer than China?

More comments

Yup. In UK they arrest you for misgendering and in China about mentioning Tianamen

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

Before I respond with anything else is your genuine belief that the Chinese state does not restrict freedom of speech to any considerably greater degree than the British state?

In which country are you more likely to actually be arrested (or at least have the police show up) for posting in contradiction of state mandated beliefs? I actually don't know the answer. I do hear about it more often from the UK but that doesn't prove much for multiple reasons.

More comments

In the same order of magnitude. Just different things you cant say. British libel laws are notorious. And the police is quite active in anti bigorty and hate speech online.

China cares about things people say that towards the state, UK - what people say to each other. Since I am quite fond of China retaking Taiwan, suppressing Tibet and don't give a fuck about Tiananmen - I don't think I can get in trouble with my speech in China ...

China does not claim to represent the white pilot's values, China does not demand any "duty" or "service" from them, the pilot's work in China, if they sign up, would be voluntary on purely capitalist mercenary basis. Not the same thing.

My contention is that the UK is exactly the same and any support of it from Englishmen in its current iteration is also purely mercenary.

I think one of the toughest lessons for ethnats to realize is that elite ethnic solidarity, at least for most west-of-Hajnal whites, is and has always been a total fantasy. The English ruling class will never prioritize the English working class or even regular middle class (which pilots, being officers, generally are) over anyone else, especially people of their own class from other lands. They may have affection for their country, for its institutions, and for People Like Them, but they have never much cared for most of its people. There isn’t any solidarity; perhaps there never has been.

They might be delusional to think that they can replace a native working class with an imported one at no loss of performance or deference, but they shall find out either way.

Historically, the rulers of Europe had to appease the rulers of the Church, and the Church cared tremendously for the people of the nation. Also, it wasn’t the peasants and traders fighting in wars, but the kings and the knights.

It is certainly the case that our current batch of leaders in the West do not provide enough for their own people at the expense of foreigners, but this is actually an historical anomaly. If a King in the past did a bad job, he risked being usurped, overthrown losing the support of the Church and landowners, which could mean (ironically) a foreign king being invited to rule as a replacement.

Here's an interesting article that discusses, among other things, mechanisms in monarchies/tribal societies for holding kings and chiefs to account:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-018-0499-3

For hajnalis in general, yes, elite ethnic solidarity is mostly a fantasy(on the other hand, Afrikaners and Southern Whites had some notable elite ethnic solidarity fairly recently), but Israel, China, Japan, and Russia are examples of much more complete elite ethnic solidarity that isn't hajnali.

A lot of Southern whites are descended from the Scots Irish, who are themselves descended from trans-Hajnal subcultures within the United Kingdom.

Yeah, and Afrikaners are arguably partially dehajnalized.

Is teen marriage unusually common among Afrikaners? According to Hajnal’s original work, the defining feature of cishajnal societies is that the working and middle classes didn’t marry until they had achieved a degree of financial independence from their parents. In the US, Southerners have consistently married younger than Yankees, even before the sexual revolution.

It was when Afrikaans society was forming, I believe. British observers noted the african Dutch to differ from euro Dutch by being poor religious fundamentalists who married their teenaged cousins- which sounds like a pretty good description of partially dehajnalizing to me.

It was when Afrikaans society was forming, I believe. British observers noted the african Dutch to differ from euro Dutch by being poor religious fundamentalists who married their teenaged cousins- which sounds like a pretty good description of partially dehajnalizing to me.

Agreed

What ethnic solidarity is there in Putin’s Russia? Much of the inner circle aren’t Russian, the business elite are pretty diverse, millions of Central Asian immigrants pour into Moscow and St Petersburg over time etc. Putin offered a vaguely nationalist justification for the invasion of Ukraine, but he and the rest of the FSB elite aren’t, by and large, sympathetic to identitarians and regularly throw them in jail, shut down rallies, bookstores and groups and even assassinate them.

China was ruled by Manchus for centuries, and even now the situation for Han in terms of affirmative action and legal rights relative to minority groups is arguably substantially worse than it is for whites in America - China literally exempted minorities from its one-child policy for decades, allowing many to expand much faster than the Han population. Before they’re regularly suppressed, online Chinese dissident rightists regularly complain that Han are discriminated against, some even advance various conspiracies that the Manchurians are still in charge.

Hardcore ethnonationalists (largely under the banner of “religious zionists”) are actually a minority in Israel, but their centrality to Bibi’s longstanding coalition with the ultra-orthodox (who don’t care about an ethnostate) and the center-right who are afraid of terrorism gives them enough power to have a decisive say in policy. Perhaps this counts as ethnic solidarity given Judaism is both ethnicity and faith, but I’m not sure it’s clear that the ‘secular elite’ in Tel Aviv have much more ethnic solidarity than whites, really. They’re just participants in a country with different demographics and therefore politics to the modal European country.

That leaves Japan. I think in many ways the Japanese are just luckier than Western Europeans. Their economic boom happening 10 years later than it did in Western Europe (more immediately postwar) and the fact that Japanese fertility rates in the 1930-1950 period had been very high by Western European standards (~4-4.5 vs 1.8-2 in the UK) meant that there was less need to import Gastarbeiter, and Korea’s immense poverty meant that when they did need them, they could look next door rather than further afield (not that there was much Korean immigration postwar). In Europe, the Germans and even Brits did first look south to Italy, Greece and so on, but the whole region was booming (and most of the poorest European countries were behind the Iron Curtain) so they looked to Turkey, Pakistan, the Caribbean etc instead.

I think most ethno-nationalists have a better understanding of the idea, that the past and current ruling powers are not their friends, than most others. Which is why so many of them see appeal in National Socialism. To that end you don't need ideological conformity and purity from the elites. Just a strongman to tardwrangle them into doing what's good for the people.

But I agree that ethno-nationalists generally go through a sort of metamorphosis where they realize that the object of their affection hates them vehemently and wants to kill itself in the name of diversity and the GDP. If a loved one explains, with a smile on their face, that they want to kill themselves, and that nothing would make them happier, do you constrain them with force and suffer their hate or hand them a rope?

I think most ethno-nationalists have a better understanding of the idea, that the past and current ruling powers are not their friends, than most others. Which is why so many of them see appeal in National Socialism. To that end you don't need ideological conformity and purity from the elites.

Except National Socialism was, in its time, widely popular among German elites, and the movement really needed their help.

Not going to happen now. No mainstream politicians and civil servants are going to cooperate with modern NS, no billionaries and corporations are going to finance the movement, no police and three letter agencies are going to avert their eyes before NS activism, no judges will let NS go with slap on the wrist.

Modern NS dream about new 1933, but establishment of "ethnostate" in today's conditions would mean total overthrow of elite 1917 style. Be careful what you wish for.

Except National Socialism was, in its time, widely popular among German elites, and the movement really needed their help.

I don't believe that's true if by 'elite' we mean politicians, business owners etc.

I mean, no. It wasn't. It was popular with lower and middle classes, the political elites hated it and the businessmen were afraid before they were mostly bribed & coerced to go along.

It absolutely was, if only because the elite at the time was deathly afraid of the communists. Likewise, you overstate lower class support for the Nazis: those people did in fact vote communist far more often.

I thought the general understanding is that the Nazis did well with the provincial lower-middle class, ie. artisans and shopkeepers, and attracted some poor rurals and some elites (in smaller proportions). Urban proletarians largely voted for communists or social democrats.

Yes. And since most societies, definitionally, have fewer elites than they do people in the underclass, you can look at the numbers and conclude the elites supported the NSDAP more than Germany's urban working class did.

'Better than the alternative' is not the same thing as 'popular'.

Nazi leadership were low-class outsiders who weren't at all sympathetic to traditional german elites.

The point being made does not pertain to a rise to power but an aspirational ideology. I sincerely doubt many National Socialists today are drawn to the idea because of its chances of political success and popular appeal.

It's instead about recognizing how the world moves and figuring out a way to wrestle it down to a point where it serves you rather than enslaves you. As an example, you can recognize that the profit motives for capitalist elites exist. To that end you don't need elite conformity to a cause, you just need a few motivated men with a monopoly on violence to stop by their house and kindly ask them to work towards a national greater good rather than their profit motives.

If a loved one explains, with a smile on their face, that they want to kill themselves, and that nothing would make them happier, do you constrain them with force and suffer their hate or hand them a rope?

What makes you think elite whites are killing themselves in the name of diversity and the GDP? I agree they are killing the lower classes of whites but elite white culture and elite white tastes will still be going strong decades into the future. Honestly I would say that at the moment elite white culture and elite white tastes are killing elite non-white culture and elite non-white tastes (and this is probably a good thing).

The elites are not the object of the ethno-nationalists affection, the 'people' are.

Sure, but then the object of the ethno-nat's affection has no control over what is happening and what will happen to them (the 'people' whites justly have next to no power, regardless of what society's democratic delusions may tell them), it's very much not "If a loved one explains, with a smile on their face, that they want to kill themselves, and that nothing would make them happier", they are more like lambs being led to the slaughter by a shepherd who's going to replace them with a more docile, less complaining breed.

Same thing happens in all empires, even faded ones like Britain. The core ethnicity that drove the success of a nation is eventually cut off from power and replaced with outsiders, loyal only to the power at the center. The golden age of Ottoman expansion was also the era that native Turks began to be resolutely marginalized within the halls of power and replaced with mostly european renegades, captives, slaves and wives. Over time even the sultan became more and more genetically european, as that's who filled the harems. They maintained a native elite, related to the cavalry forces, and with paths into the imperial bureaucracy, but the mass of Turkish people were entirely estranged from their massive empire.

We can see the same story told throughout history, in Rome, Persia, even Russia. Multi-ethnic societies/empires recruit from the margins and marginalize the majority, because powerful members of the majority are a threat to central power. A powerful member of 1% of the population ain't raising shit. Part of this process is teaching the native elites to hate and fear their own people.

It'd be interesting to see if this stuff was more or less prevalent in the other branches of the military. Back in the Vietnam War most of the racial conflict tended to be concentrated in the US Army: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html

Yet now in the US and Britain we see an emphasis on non-whites in all services, including the air force. I would've thought that the airforce was the most complicated and sophisticated branch, along with the submariners and special forces. As with surgeons and aerospace engineers, these are roles that naturally fall to whites and Asians. Yet it's not being spared diversity: https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

I love the inherent doublethink in these passages: diversity is key to the success of any organization and enhances the effectiveness of the air force. Yet achieving diversity goals is only 'aspirational' and should not interfere with merit-based processes. If diversity is so good, then how could it interfere with merit-based selection?

This is just a diatribe against blacks

No it's not:

"Racial conflicts (most but not all sparked by young black enlisted men) are erupting murderously in all services."

It's no more a diatribe against blacks than crime statistics are: 'most but not all murders are committed by blacks'. That's literally true today in the USA. And 80% of the article is to do with the other problems facing the US army in Vietnam: drugs, loss of discipline, illicit newspapers urging that troops frag their officers...

I dunno. The first sentence in the section entitled "Racial Incidents" is: "Sedition and subversion and legal harassment, rank near the top of what might be called the unprecedented external problems that elements in American society are inflicting on the Armed Forces." If that is not a diatribe alert, I don't know what is.

He then goes on to discuss a number of anecdotes, each and every one of which involves black perpetrators.

Is he supposed to find a statistic to back it up? How can he, given how the Army tries hard to cover up the data:

Among the few pre-World War II War Department records still heavily classified and thus unavailable to scholars are Army documents on racial troubles.

that knife cuts both ways. as always one must consider the source

Yes but ones priors should start with the idea that the population that is generally more violent is…more violent.

More comments

what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?

Maybe ask these guys?

  • -16

Why? China is the Nazis now? I don't get it.

If I'm wronged by someone I don't particularly care to modulate my response to what some Japanese megacucks did in the 1940's. Should I? To turn the ingroup/outgroup distinctions on their head a little: How far should jews have submitted themselves to the Third Reich? Does it reflect as a good or a bad on the character of the jewish people who allegedly sold their fellow jews out to nazis?

some Japanese megacucks

This kind of thing just degrades discourse.

Banned for a week.

A week? That's ridiculous, it wasn't even a swear word.

I think you banned him because you know he is one of the few motters who could and would eloquently and persuasively defend that position.

A week? That's ridiculous, it wasn't even a swear word.

What fucking difference would that make? It's not the words you use, here--it's how you use them.

I think you banned him because you know he is one of the few motters who could and would eloquently and persuasively defend that position.

I think I temp-banned him because next time I want him to lead with the eloquence and persuasiveness you seem to think he has at his disposal. I have quite had my fill of people getting moderated and then responding to me with eloquence and persuasiveness--or at least, with the evidence and effort they declined to furnish in the first place.

I want people to do that before they get moderated, and if they fail to do that often enough, then they're going to eat a ban. That's how this works--as you well know.

Then I think you are being extremely unfair, and not just because you led with "degrades discourse". I assumed you were giving him a slap for badmouthing a group most of us consider heroes, in which case a week seems excessive, but I understand the reasoning. But if it's about his whole post, then I'm at a loss. I don't know what else he was supposed to write in response to a four word post using those guys as a gotcha. But hani did, he demonstrated that the gotcha didn't work on him, and he then continued by explaining his positions. And while a lot of people were venting in that thread, I don't think hani was, I sensed conviction behind his posts and I wanted to see where those arguments went. Has he been dinged for this kind of thing a lot? I didn't think he'd been modded much at all, but I don't have the same data as you.

Are we talking about being unfair or being incorrect?

Hey now, you're supposed to be on the user side now, no hints.

More seriously, unless I am mistaken about hani's interactions with the staff, I think one week was excessive, very excessive. And if I am wrong about that I will distract from my error by asking if anyone knows how one would go about setting up the ban list again.

Thank you for upholding civility standards.

Does it reflect as a good or a bad on the character of the jewish people who allegedly sold their fellow jews out to nazis

Badly of course, but principally because selling people out to send them to their deaths is wrong whether those to whom you are doing it are your ingroup or not. They are no worse (though both are still abhorrent of course) than French or Dutch gentile collaborators who assisted the prosecution of the Holocaust.

That's not relevant to the point. I doubt you think that getting racially discriminated against is right. So from the perspective of a UK pilot who gets treated like some sort of subhuman by his government, is his allegiance to said racist government admirable?

If we are not venerating the loyalty of a subject to their country, what exactly are we doing? By what metric is loyalty to a country that doesn't value you and racially discriminates against you good? Do you just not like China?

megacucks

I know it is probably a waste of time to engage with someone who uses such terms, but I would like to suggest the possibility that real men undertake the hard work of trying to get those with power to live up to their ideals. It is children who respond by running away, be it to China or elsewhere, or who take the easy road of engaging in violence. Martin Luther King was a man; Huey Newton was a child. And, not uncoincidentally, King was highly effective, while Newton was counterproductive.

  • -12

Actually the Stern Gang and Irgun were full of people who just went directly to the easy road of engaging in violence and they got their country. They were extremely productive and former members of those gangs of violent extremists were elected to high office in the country that they won. History is actually full of examples of men who went and took the road of political violence and were richly rewarded for it, so I'm afraid you might want to retract that suggestion.

I was making a normative claim (as was OP, of course), not an empirical claim about what methods are likely to be successful.

That being said, there is apparently evidence that violent strategies tend to be less successful than the alternative.

And while of course there are examples of men who were richly rewarded for using political violence, there are obviously far more examples of men who were not so richly rewarded. More importantly, I was referring to strategies for social change, not personal success.

Finally, I am skeptical that the Stern gang and Irgun can be credited with the establishment of the state of Isreal, given the Balfour Declaration, world opinion after the Holocaust, and the fact that every League of Nations mandate in the Middle East became independent at about the same time.

And I'm also making a normative claim - turning to violence is not the easy option reserved for children, but a difficult and sometimes necessary path. Violence is a tool that works in some situations and doesn't in others, and trying to claim that it is the reserve of children and the incompetent is just, from my perspective, wrong. That said it took me too long to reply to this so please feel no obligation to respond.

trying to claim that it is the reserve of children and the incompetent

I certainly did not say that it is the reserve of the incompetent. I merely noted that there is "apparently evidence that violent strategies tend to be less successful than the alternative." I intentionally worded that as a relatively modest claim.

As for children, yes, I probably overstated the point. I should have said that it is children who respond with violence as a first resort, or that those who valorize vioIence as the only "manly" response to perceived injustice and who deride those who respond otherwise as "cucks" are children. But I continue to assert that, as a general rule, responding with violence is the easier path, in part because it is the most natural path. That, IIRC, was a central claim of Gandhi/MLK/whoever initially developed the theory of nonviolence.

The people in power are already living up to their ideals. The ideals of western civilization are that white men are racist oppressors who need to be removed from power to make way for minorities.

The people behaving like children in this situation are the ones saying "We hate you, go away" to highly trained pilots and making a shocked pikachu face when they leave.

"I don't like this institution and have determined that I will not achieve career success in it. I'm becoming a mercenary instead." That's not a "child running away".

Unelected bureaucrats don't answer to me and you. There's nothing you can do to stop them from implementing terrible policies. Your high minded point about "real men" is irrelevant given modern bureaucracies.

If you will support your nation only when times are good to begin with, you were always a mercenary to begin with; it just so happens that the truth got revealed a little more dramatically in these cases.

There is quite a big difference between "it's bad times" and "my country is creating bad times for me in particular".

To push back a bit: this hypothetical mercenary was denied a career or career advancement in England due to his sex and skin. Having been denied success there he sells his skills elsewhere.

I suppose he could "support his nation" by not flying anything anywhere, since his kind aren't wanted flying for the military in his nation. But at that point I'm not going to denounce this hypothetical former pilot as a childish traitor if he flies somewhere else after being denied in his birth country.

There's nothing you can do to stop them from implementing terrible policies

Except there have been countless instances of enormous shifts in the behaviour of the state apparatus?

Your high minded point about "real men"

I am not the one who initiated the "cuck" discourse.

Okay. Neither am I.

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...

did they get to watch their ethnic kinfolk firebombed and incinerated via incendiary and nuclear weapons?

Why do you think they care about their "ethnic kinfolk"? I assume, like most Americans, they were relieved that the invasion of Japan ended up being unnecessary.

Is Japan, under the fading soft power occupation of the US, thriving or is the nation slowly withering away?

Is this a joke? As if Japan did not thrive after the war.

He talked to media and he talked to elites who rode him as a prize horse for a victory lap over the dead south.

The Civil Rights Movement was probably the most successful social revolution in history. And it was not the doing of elites who were out to oppress white Southerners; elites would just as soon no one make waves. That is what elites do.

White people in the UK have no such backing.

No, but they are the majority, and they can organize politically, and politicians who want their votes will listen. Or have you never heard of the Moral Majority, or the Tea Party, or Ron DeSantis?.

successful social revolution in history

Successful it what sense?

It's not done much for black family formation.

was not the doing of elites

Have noticed the coincidence of the non-black founders of organizations like the NAACP?

Will you accept being "on the bottom of the progressive stack" if you'll have families?

Successful in overturning the social order that was Jim Crow, obviously.

Have noticed the coincidence of the non-black founders of organizations like the NAACP?

Have you noticed the elites on the other side? And, the NAACP was founded in 1909. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted 55 years later. That doesn't sound like society's elites were working very hard to advance NAACP's goals..

NAACP was founded in 1909

Yes and practiced lawfare and lobbying for 55 years prior to the CRA of 1964. It wasn't non-elites arguing these cases.

overturning the social order that was Jim Crow

If your criteria for success of an act of congress is that it makes illegal the behavior you don't like, I guess it's it's been a success.

More comments

Care to speak plainly? The rhetorical questions are getting tired.

It's pretty obvious what he's saying. Japanese-American soldiers fought for the United States in WW2 under a state that was persecuting them to a degree far in excess of what white Britons 'face', and no-one would deny that they were doing the right thing. If people who were being routinely interned can set that grievance aside, I think white Britons can set aside the grievance of a diversity drive in the RAF.

Thank you. I would argue that they would have been fully justified in not fighting for a state that had been actively persecuting them. In hindsight they seem virtuous and heroic because public opinion ended up reversing course on Japanese internment, but they couldn't be sure that that would happen two decades before the Civil Rights Act. They would have seemed foolish in a different timeline where the U.S. had remained a country where Japanese were seen as un-American and alien.

Same goes for black soldiers in WW2. Why volunteer to fight for a country that sees you as a subhuman? I think black draft dodgers during WW2 would also have been on solid moral ground.

I'm not denying that they were courageous, optimistic, and virtuous, but simply that their virtue was beyond what could be reasonably demanded in the circumstances. And so I think a young white British man would be perfectly justified in giving the finger to a system that apparently actively dislikes and seeks to diminish his kind. Pinging @Gdanning.

I think I would deny they were doing the right thing.

In fact I think it's pretty easy to establish, according to the American civic religion, that such a conduct isn't in fact, loyal, but traitorous and that they had a firm duty to rebel against tyranny. Especially when the full horror of Imperial Japanese rule was unknown to them.

If Miyagi was a true Patriot, he wouldn't have fought for the army of the State that killed his wife only to return to a country that still hated him, he'd been bombing recruitment centers instead.

If Miyagi was a true Patriot, he wouldn't have fought for the army of the State that killed his wife only to return to a country that still hated him, he'd been bombing recruitment centers instead.

With what end? All that would achieve is assisting an unambiguously far, far worse 'tyranny' in the war.

The survival of his kin sounds like enough of a motivation. And it's only unambiguous to you in retrospect.

It must have seemed fairly unambiguous to the Japanese-American soldiers at the time given that they were willing to risk their lives.

The survival of his kin sounds like enough of a motivation

I am glad that he managed to rise above man's baser instincts.

I'm not. On account of his sacred duty to his family that supercedes the one to the State.

He did not rise above anything. He took the path of least resistance.

I respect the idea of this sacrifice. But is is still a moral error.

He's plenty plain, rhetorical or not.

  • -12

I don't come to The Motte for wiki links and one liners. That's Reddit-tier discourse. If someone has a point to make, they should state it explicitly so the countours of the argument are plain.

Then you are on a different website than I am, because such comments are the order of the day. Constantly. They do not stop. To call out any single one without making it a hobby is a textbook isolated demand for rigor.

  • -11

FWIW I tend to downvote those, but I often won't engage since there's usually not even an interesting point to be made. I even report ones that are especially egregious, although certain posters on "my side" of the culture war seem to be allowed to get away with low effort snark that I think would get me moderated.

I agree with you that there are a lot of them and that they should be more aggressively moderated since they drag down the discourse.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats