naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28899 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
How would Zionists behave if they were in the Palestinian position?
This is a key question for determining the moral severity of the terrorist attacks we saw this weekend. A common criticism of Hamas is that they engage in terrorism against civilians whereas their morally enlightened (ostensibly) Israeli cousins only attack military targets. But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism. Yet at the end of the day, the same if not more civilians are killed, and the same terror is instilled in the enemy’s civilian population. Regarding an Israeli missile attack in May which killed ten civilians, Amnesty writes:
They were launched into densely populated urban areas at 2am when families were sleeping at home, which suggests that those who planned and authorized the attacks anticipated – and likely disregarded – the disproportionate harm to civilians. Intentionally launching disproportionate attacks, a pattern Amnesty International has documented in previous Israeli operations, is a war crime.
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians when you also kill military targets at the same time is often brought up when American bombings in Japan during WWII are discussed. However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.
Back to the question at hand, we know that Zionists had no issue bombing embassies and killing non-combatants in order to colonize the land of what is now called Israel. In the 40s, they notably bombed a British embassy, and in the 50s the Israeli government pressured Britain and Italy not to investigate the bombing. Recently, an Israeli historian has claimed that Zionists were responsible for the bombings targeting the Jews of Baghdad in order to pressure Jews to migrate and settle Israel. So, back when Israel’s position was more similar to Palestine, they did in fact engage in terrorist activity. If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
Not all people, not all civilizations, not all tribes, are equal. This is a core conservative conceit, it’s also inherent to ideas like HBD that you yourself agree with. Human progress has always involved the conquest of some peoples by others.
“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, 'The American Continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here.' They had not the right, nor had they the power.”
Winston Churchill on Palestine (1937)
‘Punching down’, in other words, may be more moral than ‘punching up’. The many settlers of the Americas did what they did and so, perhaps, will the Israelis.
BurdensomeCount
Singapore is the only country that learned the correct lessons from the British Empire.
2rafa 7mo ago
Oh, punching down is absolutely more moral than punching up in the modern western world. The "Up" basically pays for the continued existence of the "Down" these days, and thus punching up is nothing more than biting the hand that feeds you, the crime that Dante punished down at the very center of the lowest circle of hell, right next to where Satan was imprisoned.
The problem is that in this case, slave morality has been adopted and is being promoted by the dominant and technologically superior civilization. Wouldn’t that make it the pinnacle of human progress? Does your parochial tribe have any right not to embrace diversity and tolerance; does it even have the power for much longer? Especially since it was so intimately involved in the birth of these values (at the very least you acted as midwives).
It’s no coincidence that taking Churchill’s stance here on anything other than Palestine is unthinkable nowadays, nor is it really a good sign of things to come. Given enough time, generational loss of hypocrisy may well prevail over Holocaust guilt-mongering.
I think slave morality is a feature of modern Western hegemony. All it took was 9/11 (casualty rate of 1/10th of the Israeli death rate so far per capita) for American bloodlust to explode to current-Israeli proportions. Ann Coulter infamously spoke for many Americans when she said after 9/11 that
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war".
Diversity and tolerance are luxury patrician ideologies, Americans will be no different if or when the time comes.
Ann Coulter infamously spoke for many Americans when she said after 9/11
Yet the meme from that era that survives to this day is the ‘religion of peace’ one. It seems it would be better to describe this as an emergency belief, a temporary unprincipled exception to the general notion of virtuous victimhood that reasserts itself as soon as passions die down.
Note also the WWII analogy: the myth she invokes is absolutely central to the current incarnation of slave morality. Hitler was an avatar of absolute evil precisely because of his blatant disregard of human rights and universalism. He oppressed the weak and powerless more than anyone ever had. This was so unspeakably, cosmologically evil that it easily excuses the unprecedented suffering inflicted upon the German population, the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of young Americans, becoming an accomplice in Stalin’s crimes etc. When Americans start comparing themselves to Hadrian instead, I’ll believe they’re getting uncucked.
Not all people, not all civilizations, not all tribes, are equal. This is a core conservative conceit...
No, it certainly is not, in the sense of moral worth that you are explicitly appealing to.
it’s also inherent to ideas like HBD that you yourself agree with.
I thought HBD was just about population averages in performance, not moral worth? Have I not been told that over and over again for years now? ...In any case, I do thank you for the citation.
I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
We learn nothing. The foolishness of Enlightenment Progressivism is without bound. You and everyone else making similar arguments here know for a fact that you have no rigorous, objective, scientific materialist standard for "better" or "higher-grade" or "worldly-wise" other than raw strength. Your appeal is pure Might Makes Right, and you make it because you have lost the ability to even imagine that the roles could be reversed.
It is possible that some violence is more moral than others, because it is directed by ‘higher grade’ civilizations against lower grade ones.
No, that is not possible, nor has it ever been possible. When you design a better microprocessor, that does not give you or your culture additional moral value. Technological advancement does not, cannot, and never will imply moral value. It doesn't matter if I'm knapping flints and you're building star destroyers: our moral responsibilities to each other remain entirely unaltered. To think otherwise is to fatally misunderstand both morality and technology on an extremely basic level.
Describe for me the moral gradations between murder with a stone versus a flint knife, a bronze sword, an arrow, a bullet, or a laser-guided fragmentation submunition. Show me the moral difference between strangling a person with my bare hands and disassembling them with sci-fi nanotechnology. Show me the objective moral difference between oral storytelling around a campfire and Avengers: Endgame, or between a horse and an airplane. What is the moral value of refined aluminum, and what is the exchange rate in charred corpses of your friends and family? What is the atomic mass of love or mercy, or the molecular weight of justice?
Of course, you and most other rational materialists don't actually believe in moral value or morality in any meaningful sense, as these threads have amply demonstrated. They are just words to you, made-up labels to be applied where convinient, because ultimately there is no meaning or value to anything at all, no final accounting, no judge and therefore no justice, beyond that enforced by your own strong arm. And of course, when the nuke goes off in Tel Aviv some day, or the tech shifts the wrong way and its Israelis getting slaughtered down to the old men and the infants, that will not be "a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place", will it? Because chip fabs and language models, right?
I thought HBD was just about population averages in performance, not moral worth?
That's obviously true. But I don't think 2rafa believes a pious 90 IQ Mizrahim settler is morally less worthy than a 150 IQ Persian academic (despite likely preferring the company of the latter); and the 160 IQ Netanyahu certainly would rather have the latter assassinated to ensure the safety of the former.
It's all friend vs enemy; or worse yet, hot take vs hot take. Descriptive frameworks are used to justify normative beliefs that themselves are little more than habitual verbal behavior. It gets pretty tiresome.
«Он знает, что ничто не застанет его врасплох и ничто не заставит сделать какое-нибудь отступление от той сети пустых и насквозь прогнивших афоризмов, в которую он закутался с головы до ног. Для него не существует ни горя, ни радости, ни ненависти, ни любви. Весь мир, в его глазах, есть гроб, могущий служить лишь поводом для бесконечного пустословия.»
But I don't think 2rafa believes a pious 90 IQ Mizrahim settler is morally less worthy than a 150 IQ Persian academic (despite likely preferring the company of the latter);
Are many settlers Mizrachim? In any case I find the settlements project inanely justified by a religious ideology I don’t believe in and unnecessarily provocative at best. The ‘67 borders are amenable to me, although I’d have the Saudis run the Palestinian state. As for who should be in power, well you know my opinion of democracy.
Many of my friends were (gentile) Persians growing up, and many of them still are. It is entirely feasible that a smart Persian academic, even one committed to Israel’s destruction, might have higher moral worth than a 90 IQ Religious Zionist. Iranian hostility to Israel is the result of a PR exercise by the mullahs, it can evaporate within months of regime change. Palestinian hostility, due to the fundamental nature of dispossession, is much more intractable.
‘My people’ are smart, secular, Ashkenazim, although we have thrown our lot in with some I find much more unsavory. Nevertheless, when it comes to broad principles, Iran isn’t discriminating between the settlement fanatic (few or none of whom seem to have been killed on Saturday) and a version of me in Israel, so there is little choice in whom to support for now.
And you cannot disconnect IQ from moral worth entirely. It is immoral when something beautiful is destroyed by something uglier and more vulgar. This is in part why we find rape so abhorrent, it is why the Mongol horde razing civilization to the ground is such a deeply ingrained (often subconscious) cultural motif. So yes, Bronze Age savagery by a people who have not contributed to the wider human race in a millennium and who would rather live in poverty and squalor than kneel is morally less noble than, say, the settlement of the Americas by Europeans, regardless of the individual moral worth of members of that culture.
I thought HBD was just about population averages in performance, not moral worth? Have I not been told that over and over again for years now? ...In any case, I do thank you for the citation.
HBD is a fact, what policy implications you draw from it are a function of the rest of your values.
Me? I think we should gene therapy the living shit out of the human population until everyone is at least a 180 IQ Ubermensch, potentially to the limits of human biology and other relevant tradeoffs. Skin color should no more determine your more relevant qualities than the shade of lipstick you choose to wear.
Should. Not does, at present. We look for trillion dollar bills on the pavement, not realizing that it is the pavement. Or at least I hope a bill for a sum so large should reflect it.
I also happen to be less than sympathetic to the accusations of racism of the gaps that provoked the Great Awokening, since any discrepancies are best explained by HBD instead.
Skin color should no more determine your more relevant qualities than the shade of lipstick you choose to wear.
Yeah, that's never going to happen. We don't have full control of our genes and I'm going to bet even slight tweaks to skin color will have a measurable effect on intelligence. (In either way. Who knows, maybe 300% melanin will actually make us hyper intelligent or whatever).
Whatever genes you alter to change faces, hair, body size. Literally any structural or outward appearance of a human will also alter their brains. It's all interconnected.
I find this a very dubious assertion, within my limit of understanding of genetics. Which I would hope is better than average, even if I don't claim domain expertise like say, our Chris Pratt Dino Wrangler friend can say.
Yes, DNA is unadulterated spaghetti code, but it's not so intractable that something like melanin production can't be targeted without, a priori, not expecting it to blow up the kidneys of something. If I was designing something, I would look for a way to down regulate melanocyte stimulating hormone, to the degree feasible without say, causing visual problems as seen in albinos.
While skin tone isn't a Mendelian trait, I see no reason to think it can't be managed.
As for other phenotypical traits, it depends, but once again I have reason for optimism, or at least faith in plastic surgery. It doesn't have to be a germline modification, you can probably pull it off in-utero or later, the bones have to grow, unless you have a really bad case of baby face.
And since my end goal is liberation from biology in the form of an existence as a mind upload, then I'd say I don't particularly care either way.
HBD is a fact, what policy implications you draw from it are a function of the rest of your values.
And heretofore, HBD proponents have vociferously denied that they consider those of lower genetic IQ to be morally inferior. And yet, here we are.
Me? I think we should gene therapy the living shit out of the human population until everyone is at least a 180 IQ Ubermensch, potentially to the limits of human biology and other relevant tradeoffs.
You also think that less-sophisticated people should be massacred by "more sophisticated" people, if they turn out to be troublesome. The fact that genetic engineering is considerably more hypothetical than massacre engineering raises immediate concerns.
And heretofore, HBD proponents have vociferously denied that they consider those of lower genetic IQ to be morally inferior. And yet, here we are.
Well, I can't speak for all of them. I just happen to prefer assigning some moral worth on the basis of IQ, and today, race serves as a strong proxy. They could be pink and blue with elephant ears for all I really care. Or a mind upload.
You also think that less-sophisticated people should be massacred by "more sophisticated" people
"Should" seems a bit strong if I stop to assess everything I've uttered on the matter today. If there was a peaceful solution, I'd take it, but if there isn't, then I won't complain at all if the Israelis stamp out their opposition instead of letting it fester. Largely because I think the total amount of violence necessary over a longer period will be lower if it's frontloaded.
The fact that genetic engineering is considerably more hypothetical than massacre engineering raises immediate concerns.
HBD proponents are a heterogeneous group. And if we're talking about 2rafa who seems to have brought it up in this subthread, I'm fairly sure she considers a whole lot of people (including most of us) to be her inferiors in all ways.
Whether there's an "evil gene" (or genes) is in an interesting question, but my guess is that if there is, it's at fixation in the human population. And is a separate thing from IQ. Being stupid doesn't make you evil, though it may make you become more easily convinced that evil things which are not in your self interest actually are.
And of course, when the nuke goes off in Tel Aviv some day, or the tech shifts the wrong way and its Israelis getting slaughtered down to the old men and the infants, that will not be "a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place", will it? Because chip fabs and language models, right?
There's a reason I'm not an Israeli, namely that I think the chances of Israel losing (everything) are much higher than most people, and especially most Jews, recognize. My existence in the diaspora is comfortable enough, and as such (a sign of loyalty, perhaps) I also don't favor additional (or any) American/Western aid for Israel. Nevertheless, both as a Jew and a supporter of civilization in the endless struggle against savagery, barbarism, and low IQ nonsense, I won't shed any tears if the Israelis decide (and successfully ensure) that enough is enough. The Holocaust was a tragedy of history and, though I don't particularly consider German civilization superior to Jewish civilization, we got fucked and many of us paid the price. That is life, and though I have thoughts on the general principles of the matter, I personally harbor no illusions that I am morally superior to a German or Palestinian, nor do I care to be.
I think Jews are mostly quite aware of, and discuss incessantly, Israel lacking strategic depth and being in a precarious situation and having no choice but to preemptively strike etc etc; if anything, they overestimate the threat from its utterly inept or degraded, and frankly well-taught in previous wars, neighbors.
What they do get wrong is the relative danger of being in the Diaspora, because they take deluded Whites lending vocal support to Hamas and other savages too seriously, and extrapolate this incoherent virtue-signaling gibberish to willingness for participating in or enabling Antisemitic violence locally. I appreciate that progressive Jews at, say, Harvard may experience very… interesting emotions right now; but realistically, they're unlikely to ever get hit with more than a variant of anti-white anti-colonial invective from their peers. Hence «there is only one country where it's safe to live while being a Jew» refrain. (Though judging by Twitter and in light of recent events, India might quality).
Then again, I may be overestimating human rationality and pacification again.
In my more optimistic moments I believe that all the "extermination by Artificial SuperIntelligence" fears will prove to be unfounded, because the sorts of strategies we use to train LLMs will also be used to train future superintelligence to share human values.
In my more pessimistic moments I believe that all the "extermination by Artificial SuperIntelligence" fears will prove to be inevitable, because the sorts of strategies we use to train LLMs will also be used to train future superintelligence to share human values.
Funny coming from someone like you rather willing to whine about racism, antisemitism while simultaneously pushing your own genocidal and racist supremacist agendas.
Fundamentally your words are hollow and it is BS BS, We Jews are superior (including those of lower IQ and can do as we want.
Like this monstrous inferior savage:
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly."
It is true that humans are not equal. And trying to enforce that all groups do equally well is folly. However, there is another way that not all groups are equal. And that is morality.
There is a reason why adults who are smarter are not allowed by any sane society to pray on children who are weaker and lower intelligence.
Some people are cruel, predatory, hypocritical, ingrates, and have all the traits of murderous narcisistic sociopaths. I am not talking hre about da Jews although I think you personally have argued one too many times about carpet bombing middle east and similiar rhetoric although never once been banned for it. Recently you have been promoting the final solution to palestinian problem and genocidal mass murder.
The short of it is that you are willing to destroy civilizations and support attrocities because you are a hateful racist fanatic who lacks decency.
AND when others have even a sane menality critical of your people engaging in this dark racist supremacist path that is pervasive, you whine about racism.
Obviously you wouldn't acceept others treating you by the same coin. Indeed, your whine about nazism is utterly hypocritical considering your only difference is your group you are a racist supremacist for.
I am glad in this instance you show your power level as you have done in others. But trully you are allowed to be this way because of others who are like you.
Anyhow, as you very well know (you are someone who whines about others being racist over petty nonsense when you are this kind of person) the concept but pretend not to, because you are bloodthirsty racist supremacist fanatic, obviously there is a value in certain forms of equality even if the concept of equality going far is utterly idiotic.
And that has to do with rights and equality under the law. Just like we shouldn't let ten dumber people gang up on one smarter person, we should also not allow the later defraud the first. but actually you are no IQ supremacist, having opposed HBDers and having supported AA, but suddenly you become the most hardcore of HBD racist supremacist when it comes to da Jews.
A sane society would not tolerate hateful fanatics like you to promote your propaganda and advocate for warcrimes. Least of all your rhetoric in favor of war crimes and mass murder in the middle east is not unrelated to the millions who died there. And of course your rhetoric in favor of cultural genocide in west, and the vile agendas related to that.
Of course you are contemptible from both a universalistic perspective as a malevolent dishonest predatory and parasitical racist supremacist and a local one. Whether the local funnilly enough applies to pretty much most non jewish groups. And likely those you want to use as goldems against your outgroup.
I never opposed it (and have pretty much the standard take here, i.e. that the evidence is compelling). As for AA, I think what I said is that HBD and affirmative action aren’t actually mutually exclusive under a tribal spoils system, but again, I don’t think that has much to do with the point he’s trying to make.
I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it.
This is, of course, a justification that one day may be used against peoples less backward than Palestinians. «You are animals in comparison, so we do not admit any wrong in dispossessing you».
It must be nice to belong to the highest average IQ population on the planet. Whatever ideology wins, your side comes out on top.
Eh, I think the use of the word "race" in that quote misleads a bit. All Churchill is really getting across is the old reply to Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Not a very Christian perspective of Churchill, and not one I agree with, but he's not just saying that there's a hierarchy of races, and if you're lower you have no moral claim against your betters.
Yes, he's not a scrub loser to appeal to some predefined theoretically just table of ranks. He is saying instead that this hierarchy is established in a contest of strength; that might makes right through its very utilization. It's an explicitly Hitlerist argument, ironically enough – except it doesn't presuppose proven superiority of Aryans. But this does explain, to some extent, why Hitler believed in such tender kinship with Anglo-Saxons.
(fuckduck9000 would say that this he is exactly correct, as demonstrated by German loss and British victory).
Eh, I think the use of the word "race" in that quote misleads a bit. All Churchill is really getting across is the old reply to Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Yes. That reply is fundamentally repugnant. Bullets, bombs and other horrors exist to punish such foolishness.
A great and glorious thing it is
To learn, for seven years or so,
The Lord knows what of that and this,
Ere reckoned fit to face the foe —
The flying bullet down the Pass,
That whistles clear: "All flesh is grass."
Three hundred pounds per annum spent
On making brain and body meeter
For all the murderous intent
Comprised in "villanous saltpetre!"
And after — ask the Yusufzaies
What comes of all our 'ologies.
A scrimmage in a Border Station —
A canter down some dark defile —
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail —
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
No proposition Euclid wrote,
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow
Strike hard who cares — shoot straight who can —
The odds are on the cheaper man.
One sword-knot stolen from the camp
Will pay for all the school expenses
Of any Kurrum Valley scamp
Who knows no word of moods and tenses,
But, being blessed with perfect sight,
Picks off our messmates left and right.
With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troop-ships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap — alas! as we are dear.
I agree with rafa. I keep telling you Might Morality and Truth are correlated. As are Weakness, Ignorance and Evil. Parent to child, elder to younger sibling, civilised to barbarian, the stronger is often the wiser.
It’s a strange equivalence op is trying to draw. The more obvious one is that with israeli capabilities , hamas would have killed far more jews in a day than jews ever killed palestinians. palestinians owe their lives to jewish clemency, yet are incapable of it. They are ignorant of their own weakness, and morally childish, which is to say, incompetent and cruel .
I'd gladly witness your culling by a militarily superior race in its quest for Lebensraum, so long as it's explicitly justified with this inane correlational logic.
Despite the triteness of this platitude, correlation really does not imply causation. There are some tenuous reasons for morality to be weakly correlated with formidability, but overwhelmingly it's just due to the fact that peoples of Western Christian extraction are the strongest, have been for centuries, and have recently developed some queer compunctions. Well, this particular mix of character traits isn't globally optimal, and their exalted status isn't going to last much longer. Technologically advanced Chinese, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Mongols, Africans, whatever, wherever (including in your nations, including in their halls of power) will be as ruthless as they need to, and increasingly prove this as your race decays; first they'll bother with some glib chattering, then they'll stop. You are used to mercy and magnanimity tempering realpolitik. You'll cope about power being self-justifying, inherently beautiful and ultimately more True than any morality when those shackles are cast away.
I'd gladly witness your culling by a militarily superior race in its quest for Lebensraum, so long as it's explicitly justified with this inane correlational logic.
Already happened. And my nazi grandfathers had to witness the full extent of their moral, racial, military and epistemologic inferiority. They fought till destruction because they really believed in the correlation, far more than I do. In a way it vindicated the theory while it destroyed them and their particular beliefs.
When you’re living in your bombed-out capital, your conscience sullied, your army destroyed, your reputation infamous, the universe is trying to tell you something. You can immediately exclude the hypothesis of having done anything right, and of your own superiority.
I don't think realpolitik will triumph if the west falls - people have always resisted the athenians, even when it was hopeless - witness the realists anger at Ukraine. If china dominates, they'll just make their own rules russia and the others will have to obey, and the russians will still be grumbling about 'universalism' .
Not necessarily. If Hamas had Israeli capabilities, they would have different incentives than they currently do. It's possible that they would decide "yeah let's kill as many Jews as we can", but it's also possible that they would decide "you know what, given that the Jews aren't actually an existential threat to us, maybe we should chill out instead of turning most of the world against us by massacring people".
but it's also possible that they would decide "you know what, given that the Jews aren't actually an existential threat to us, maybe we should chill out instead of turning most of the world against us by massacring people".
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
Perhaps all these shall happen...but not before the end of the world
Given the comments here and elsewhere, I very much doubt any sincerity when it comes to the alleged 'clemency' on Israels part. Apparently, the only reason jews in Israel have not ethnically cleansed, genocided, holocausted or otherwise brutalized their enemy is because it's a bad tactic at the moment. Because, I would suppose from your comment, there are stronger, morally wiser, more competent and actually merciful people out there that prevent the childish and inane racist power fantasies of hateful zionist jews to come to light.
This is a real mask off moment. Zionists wish suffering and death on women and children. They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs. Everything they allege a nazi was they wish they could be.
They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs.
Most of your comment falls on the wrong side of the rules, I think, but this line in particular seems like standard-issue hyperbolic propaganda. Like, show me one instance where this looks literally true, a single instance of Israel selecting "the most torturous way possible" to kill "1000 innocents" for any reason at all, much less to "save a single one of theirs."
This is (apparently!) a hotly contested issue, so I was feeling mildly reluctant to moderate you in spite of the overall badness of the comment, but that sentence in particular just struck me as entirely too much heat, directed toward your outgroup, for what looks like no light at all.
Evil is usually a bad tactic. The holocaust really slowed down the german war effort. I wish they'd understood how bad genocide is tactically. They could have achieved more objectives for less blood.
Anyway, who's mask off? rafa is always for culling the young male population anywhere, anytime.
I don't recognize the claims of the indians or palestinians , and I don't even need to call them savages, - all they have are earlier claims of conquest that have been nullified by more recent ones.
The holocaust really slowed down the german war effort.
This is a common idea, but actually the Holocaust barely affected the German war effort. The whole thing used only a very small fraction of the German manpower and logistics capacity, required no rare materials, and may have even paid for itself by providing slave labor.
What do you call a very small fraction? Seems to me large parts of the military were involved in it, or otherwise 'pacifying' to allow the einsatzgruppen to do their work. All of this wouldn't even be necessary if they just played the kind liberators against soviet oppression.
But that's not even the worst waste: Without the antisemitic obsession , jews would be the usual highly productive workforce, like in WWI, and perhaps they could build an atomic bomb for germany, or find another Haber-Bosch, or Fischer-Tropf process. Slave labor benefits, or the value of their gold teeth, are a joke by comparison.
Sorry for the really late reply but yes, I think that you are right that the overall Nazi anti-Jew campaign probably slowed their war effort by, for example, driving a bunch of scientists out of the country. When I wrote my reply, I thought that you were referring specifically to the wartime Holocaust that started around 1941.
That is the only real justification that matters. I have (as I have said many times) great sympathy for the Palestinians; their armed struggle is justified on grounds of self defense and historical humiliation. Their war crimes are brutal, but expected. If they fight to the end, they’ll die with honor, at least by their own standards (the only ones that matter, in that case).
I think if you take a civilizational view, there ought to be some kind of respect for national achievement. But the thing about war is that if you lose, you probably weren’t really as good as you thought. If Israel is defeated, the Jewish political project will be over, and they can be considered a defeated people who wasted their opportunity for statehood, at least for now. A tragedy, perhaps, but one of many in history. So it does go both ways.
Yes "a tragedy perhaps" but one that can be forgoten and bypassed. Promoted by someone like you who are milking grudges constantly. The point here you are promoting is that the defeat of Palestinians which is more likely now can be forgoten. Not about Israel.
If you really cared about forgetting tragedies, you wouldn't be milking the holocaust.
The issue here is that incredibly immoral sociopathic Jewish supremacists and other bad actors are free to destroy as they please instead of being restrained through accountability. Like, if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for hate speech, it aint most people you whine about whose rhetoric counters your extremism and therefore promote a valuable service to society even if some can go too far, but the cimarafas of the world are the primary faction of the most malevolent abuse of rights today.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators. Birds of a feather and reveals the fake nature of rationalism which underneath lies hypocritical extreme tribalism. Like the other israel firster and backers of the racist supremacist democrats the fraudster Sam Bankman Fried.
I don't remember having ever seen 2rafa try to milk the Holocaust. Maybe she has, somewhere, but I'm at least pretty sure I would have noticed by now if she did it on a regular basis.
I have the sense that you might be projecting your mental concept of what Jewish supremacists are like onto everyone who agrees even partially with things that you consider to be Jewish supremacy adjacent, even if those people do not actually express the ideas that you think they are expressing.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators. Birds of a feather and reveals the fake nature of rationalism which underneath lies hypocritical extreme tribalism. Like the other israel firster and backers of the racist supremacist democrats the fraudster Sam Bankman Fried.
Well no, it's no accident because the mods here ding people for personal attacks, and rafa didn't attack anyone. Besides which, a motte where she can't say what she thinks is a worse motte. It is because I am rational that I allow her shitty argument - so I can argue against it - just as much as it is because of her rationality that she allows my shitty arguments - so she can argue against them.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
Belisarius 7mo ago
You have a bunch of comments in the mod queue. Most of them, like this one, this one, and this one, are just raging ad hominems.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators.
If @2rafa was advocating literal genocide (which I'm pretty sure she's not), people are allowed to argue for abominable things here. That's why going on about how much you hate Jews hasn't gotten you into trouble until now, when you lost your self control and made it personal.
You're being really obnoxious and antagonistic and clearly cruising for a banning. Since you posted so many comments like this in such a short time, I'm guessing you knew you'd get modded and figured you'd get your attacks in while you can.
Banned for a week because this is your first formal mod action, but if you come back for another round of "Flame people before I get banned" I'll just delete your posts and permaban you. If you actually want to continue to participate here, get yourself under control.
Since you are making a moral arguement condemning me as hateful and defending cimarafa it is fair to ask what cimerafa advocates if it isn't genocide.
It isn't hard to connect the quote from Churchil. Or this quote by cimarafa
The most important thing for Israel is that it moves toward firing squads and summary execution of perhaps 10,000-30,000 fighting age men in Gaza, as well as the entire political leadership, mercilessly but quickly and professionally. But then again, I’m a Zionist.
along with other rhetoric from them and various people here. Bloodthirsty rhetoric is abominable but opposing it and calling for restraint is correct.
And in fact, it is the pervasive view worldwide, was more popular in the USA in the past to an extend. In addition with a decent size of negativity towards Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians but without such negativity leading to the same dehumanization against Israelis than we see against Palestinians. Well except some quarters of the world. And of course, you will find in much of the world plenty of negativity towards Hamas. Anyway, negativity up to a point is a moderating pressure on those who would behave badly without it. But it does require a certain objectivity by those who throw it around.
You attack me of being hateful and I will be defending myself but it is those who have allowed the dehumanization of convenient targets and the advocation of atrocities under racist supremacist ideology while being ban happy to dissenters have genuinely been reprehensible.
And in relevance to the Israel and Gaza conflict, in fact it is precisely because of such decisions by people in control of media and social media that so much blood has been spilled in the middle east for the last 20 years.
Also directly related to the culture war reaching the extreme directions it reached. If there were more responsible and ethical and even handed people in charge, and gatekept out unethical virtue signaling extremists, a lot less blood would have been spilled.
Alas the gatekeeping has been done by the extremists with a manichaistic vision of the world who combine being extreme racists who with the pretensions of being antiracists out to destroy hatred. In fact they hate those who are much more moderate than them and perceive that moderation as hatred.
One that is less hostile on groups than the rhetoric against "inferior peoples". Or is it ok for people to advocate against palestnians and not ok to advocate against people who have influence in media, and social media and forums? Well the later is more in line to being against hatred than for it.
This is not a forum nor has ever been a forum where any political rhetoric goes but one where the moderators have always put a thump on the scales. And while I will be responding in a calmer manner, I will never censor the view that is completely against this ideology I speak about. Plus, it matters what opinion people of influence express. Even in lower importance settings with low inluence. And what views do you express? Well, you have ignored all this bloodthirsty rhetoric even some you linked and more besides and other and you only saw fit to imagine hatred against Jews fitting to comment about. When in a conflict when radicalism in favor of Jews that uses the ideology of Jewish superiority and Jews doing no wrong as an asset, negativity is the necessary antidote.
Even though the actual extreme racist rhetoric and advocation for murder here was obviously not against Jews but Palestinians and other groups deemed inferior by the people promoting said rhetoric.
Personally attacking me as hating the Jews when in response to all of this my view was that Jews have a serious problem of racism is you abusing your position as a moderator to personally attack your outgroup based on your sympathies.
It is actually impressive how with so much provocation my rhetoric towards groups like the Jews was restrained to only condemn pervasive racism as a problem and also outside of Jews in general being critical of those advocating of atrocities without myself siding with those who have abused Jews, like Hamas.
I am actually proud of how even handed my views are in comparison with who I am dealing with and the fact I did push back on their hateful rhetoric that promotes atrocities.
But sure, I will stand for the truth with less personal criticisms against the people who advocate for atrocities here.
Now in regards to the issue of who is the hateful in the current political environment.
The reality is that if virtue signalling racist extremists of the politically correct manner where to deradicalize, stopped their propaganda and moderate and listen to the many reasonable criticisms instead of slandering it all as hatred, the world would be a less racist, and hateful place. The people who are reasonable are never going to be perfect to the standards of extremists who see criticism and negativity towards their ingroup as a sin.
This of course applies also to Israel and Gaza conflict and zionism in general. And yes it does applies to groups like Hamas as well.
Plus, human beings are always going to be emotional beings even those who are reasonable enough to qualify as reasonable people. And for the unreasonable filled with fanaticism to lose, the reasonable need to match them in determination and will.
Less provocative racism which we shouldn't appease to, will lead to less proportionate hostility. And will reduce conflict being inflamed. But this would require to have people in positions of power who put their influence to good use for once and gatekeep those who don't. This is me making an observation about the culture war, certainly less flaming the outgroup than the people calling for commiting attrocities, or inferior peoples deserving it. And pertinent to your condemnation of me as hateful. Which is dangerous rhetoric from you considering the willingness of people to harm those perceived as hateful on the Jews.
Pressure in these directions is necessary for less hatred.
I am very much willing to accept the groups I complain about moderating, and have no problem with consistent standards but it would make me happy and consider it a victory for my position. I reject your framing. If those I call progressive supremacists or Jewish supremacists (which excludes Jews who aren't Jewish supremacists and includes non Jews who are Jewish supremacists who I have been quite negative about) abadoning their ideology and accepting that their rights ends where others begins, and vice versa, that their rights also exist, is a great general compromising point. In Israel it would along with far more restraint in dealing with Palestinians (although opposing Hamas is in line with protecting their own rights) and acceptance of how warcrimes of past, present and future are a sin also include of course ending settlements. And I would rather that the racist ideology of Jews did no wrong, Christians and Europeans or non Jews are to blame for interethnic conflict to be abadoned and not tolerated, but without pushing the opposite extreme.
Obviously this position is more moderate and pro Israeli and Jews , than the people I have been arguing with are pro Palestinian. And more pro Jewish than those promoting the Jews didn't do or are doing wrong position. But what makes you angry?
Less "It isn't happening its all in your hateful conspiring head and it is good that it is happening". More "I aknowledge that we or the progressive stack group might have erred in this manner and this isn't how things ought to go and here is how things should change, but lets be fair about it and not go to the other extreme".
Of course, not only many of their critics are reasonable people who are opposing the most pervasive extremism in our time but also even those who are similarly extreme which I am also not a fan of, can in fact make legitimate points too. Indeed, even with the people I complain about, I wouldn't say they are wrong to note that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting it are radicalized too. Which I funnily enough, got zero pushback in observing that fact. It's because people willing to advocate aggressively in favor of Palestinians mistreating Jews are rare here over the opposite.
As far as the more pervasive extremism of the day in western countries, this applies to both racist tribalists for their own groups in line with progressive stack groups and we observe the groups where it is taboo to object to their racism, but not taboo for them to be racist to naturally behave the worse. This is not going to lead to reasonable people objecting being zen monks, and rightfully so.
If it is taboo and racist to oppose the racism of Jews but not taboo for Jews or even non Jews to be racists in favor of Jews, then you got a problem of racism in favor of Jews. Naturally you will get much more of what you incentivize.
Not that complicated and not that hard for people to have a more even handed norm than that, in line with the golden rule. Not hard if people want to do that and much easier if they are incentivized to do that and we put might in service of right instead of defining what is right by might.
And it applies also to the phenomenon I have spent some time talking about which is racist supremacists for a different ethnic group. Note, that I got only a problem with any sort of tribalists for any group if it is above a certain point. It is reasonable for people to like their group. Even handedness is about avoiding certain massive bad behavior, about putting red lines respected reciprocally. It isn't about eliminating racism in an utopian manner that predictably leads to people forgiving the massive and obsessing over the irrelevant.
Not tolerating big problems does include not tolerating the view that inferior peoples should be destroyed.
And it isn't a personal attack but simply a fact that various posters here promote said racist supremacist rhetoric. Completely fair in discussing the culture war to note this fact and acknowledge it as a negative development. How is that radicalized rhetoric not provocative and attention worthy but only the response to it?
Personally I find that it isn't virtuous, or praiseworthy to be silent in line with the more pervasive racist extremism. Nor is it courageous to condemn and punch down on the politically correct targets.
And it is also fair to see the rhetoric in line of mass murder, or carpet bombing the area and ethnically cleansing Palestinians as genocide.
Is there a room in opposition to this ideology and rhetoric? Or are you going to cover with it as a moderator because you sympathize with that faction and paint opposition as hateful? Will you use the position as moderator to impose your perspective?
If you can paint me as hateful, and call this fair, I can only fairly completely reject this framing and say just as fairly as your statement that I stand against hatred you sympathize with, so that is what I advocated here for. So I explain my position over the easy slander.
And I have important reason to do so, because you can get away with your sympathies in the current political environment, for now. While those who are rather more reasonable than you can find themselves mistreated. And you know it. Of course things can change and change in a reasonable direction than the opposite extreme.
Obviously, when we got rather extreme rhetoric against general outgroups here and people promoting extreme rhetoric of their ingroups doing no wrong, others should respond.
Still, in a calmer manner, so there is less of an excuse. So I will change the way I express my values, I won't compromise on being critical of what I ought to be criticizing.
By the way, I don't see the point of you deleting my few posts when you attack me. Isn't this a way for you to paint me in any manner as you please?
Criticism that opposes bloodthirsty fanaticism in fact it is incredibly important to do so and censoring it is feeding a dangerous crocodile. And lack of it has lead to repeated tragedies, while those doing so might be arrogant and contemptuous of those wiser, not knowing what they are doing, when they create interesting times they too will be affected.
As for the general problem of hatred of our times. Those who need to change their ways and behave in a an ethical manner, to avoid their gigantic bias and to stop advocating for attrocities, won't do it when those who are in charge also share their ideology and participate, or enable it. When pushback doesn't exist and in fact it is opposed. So, the key issue here and is to gatekeep better and have ethical people be those in charge who are intolerant of this kind of behavior.
I will consider it a success against hatred if the rhetoric of those who can't coexist with other ethnic groups and don't tolerate their continued existence and are greedy to dominate others are drowned out by those opposing it. Therefore those who would support destroying and oppressing the other ethnic groups stay silent, or actually through incentives never arrive in positions that they are more psychologically susceptible to fall into.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
Amadan 7mo ago
Since you posted so many comments like this in such a short time, I'm guessing you knew you'd get modded and figured you'd get your attacks in while you can.
There's also the possibility of just reading through a thread and responding to everything that drew his ire as he read it.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How would Zionists behave if they were in the Palestinian position?
This is a key question for determining the moral severity of the terrorist attacks we saw this weekend. A common criticism of Hamas is that they engage in terrorism against civilians whereas their morally enlightened (ostensibly) Israeli cousins only attack military targets. But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism. Yet at the end of the day, the same if not more civilians are killed, and the same terror is instilled in the enemy’s civilian population. Regarding an Israeli missile attack in May which killed ten civilians, Amnesty writes:
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians when you also kill military targets at the same time is often brought up when American bombings in Japan during WWII are discussed. However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.
Back to the question at hand, we know that Zionists had no issue bombing embassies and killing non-combatants in order to colonize the land of what is now called Israel. In the 40s, they notably bombed a British embassy, and in the 50s the Israeli government pressured Britain and Italy not to investigate the bombing. Recently, an Israeli historian has claimed that Zionists were responsible for the bombings targeting the Jews of Baghdad in order to pressure Jews to migrate and settle Israel. So, back when Israel’s position was more similar to Palestine, they did in fact engage in terrorist activity. If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
Not all people, not all civilizations, not all tribes, are equal. This is a core conservative conceit, it’s also inherent to ideas like HBD that you yourself agree with. Human progress has always involved the conquest of some peoples by others.
‘Punching down’, in other words, may be more moral than ‘punching up’. The many settlers of the Americas did what they did and so, perhaps, will the Israelis.
Oh, punching down is absolutely more moral than punching up in the modern western world. The "Up" basically pays for the continued existence of the "Down" these days, and thus punching up is nothing more than biting the hand that feeds you, the crime that Dante punished down at the very center of the lowest circle of hell, right next to where Satan was imprisoned.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that in this case, slave morality has been adopted and is being promoted by the dominant and technologically superior civilization. Wouldn’t that make it the pinnacle of human progress? Does your parochial tribe have any right not to embrace diversity and tolerance; does it even have the power for much longer? Especially since it was so intimately involved in the birth of these values (at the very least you acted as midwives).
It’s no coincidence that taking Churchill’s stance here on anything other than Palestine is unthinkable nowadays, nor is it really a good sign of things to come. Given enough time, generational loss of hypocrisy may well prevail over Holocaust guilt-mongering.
I think slave morality is a feature of modern Western hegemony. All it took was 9/11 (casualty rate of 1/10th of the Israeli death rate so far per capita) for American bloodlust to explode to current-Israeli proportions. Ann Coulter infamously spoke for many Americans when she said after 9/11 that
Diversity and tolerance are luxury patrician ideologies, Americans will be no different if or when the time comes.
Yet the meme from that era that survives to this day is the ‘religion of peace’ one. It seems it would be better to describe this as an emergency belief, a temporary unprincipled exception to the general notion of virtuous victimhood that reasserts itself as soon as passions die down.
Note also the WWII analogy: the myth she invokes is absolutely central to the current incarnation of slave morality. Hitler was an avatar of absolute evil precisely because of his blatant disregard of human rights and universalism. He oppressed the weak and powerless more than anyone ever had. This was so unspeakably, cosmologically evil that it easily excuses the unprecedented suffering inflicted upon the German population, the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of young Americans, becoming an accomplice in Stalin’s crimes etc. When Americans start comparing themselves to Hadrian instead, I’ll believe they’re getting uncucked.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, it certainly is not, in the sense of moral worth that you are explicitly appealing to.
I thought HBD was just about population averages in performance, not moral worth? Have I not been told that over and over again for years now? ...In any case, I do thank you for the citation.
We learn nothing. The foolishness of Enlightenment Progressivism is without bound. You and everyone else making similar arguments here know for a fact that you have no rigorous, objective, scientific materialist standard for "better" or "higher-grade" or "worldly-wise" other than raw strength. Your appeal is pure Might Makes Right, and you make it because you have lost the ability to even imagine that the roles could be reversed.
No, that is not possible, nor has it ever been possible. When you design a better microprocessor, that does not give you or your culture additional moral value. Technological advancement does not, cannot, and never will imply moral value. It doesn't matter if I'm knapping flints and you're building star destroyers: our moral responsibilities to each other remain entirely unaltered. To think otherwise is to fatally misunderstand both morality and technology on an extremely basic level.
Describe for me the moral gradations between murder with a stone versus a flint knife, a bronze sword, an arrow, a bullet, or a laser-guided fragmentation submunition. Show me the moral difference between strangling a person with my bare hands and disassembling them with sci-fi nanotechnology. Show me the objective moral difference between oral storytelling around a campfire and Avengers: Endgame, or between a horse and an airplane. What is the moral value of refined aluminum, and what is the exchange rate in charred corpses of your friends and family? What is the atomic mass of love or mercy, or the molecular weight of justice?
Of course, you and most other rational materialists don't actually believe in moral value or morality in any meaningful sense, as these threads have amply demonstrated. They are just words to you, made-up labels to be applied where convinient, because ultimately there is no meaning or value to anything at all, no final accounting, no judge and therefore no justice, beyond that enforced by your own strong arm. And of course, when the nuke goes off in Tel Aviv some day, or the tech shifts the wrong way and its Israelis getting slaughtered down to the old men and the infants, that will not be "a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place", will it? Because chip fabs and language models, right?
That's obviously true. But I don't think 2rafa believes a pious 90 IQ Mizrahim settler is morally less worthy than a 150 IQ Persian academic (despite likely preferring the company of the latter); and the 160 IQ Netanyahu certainly would rather have the latter assassinated to ensure the safety of the former.
It's all friend vs enemy; or worse yet, hot take vs hot take. Descriptive frameworks are used to justify normative beliefs that themselves are little more than habitual verbal behavior. It gets pretty tiresome.
«Он знает, что ничто не застанет его врасплох и ничто не заставит сделать какое-нибудь отступление от той сети пустых и насквозь прогнивших афоризмов, в которую он закутался с головы до ног. Для него не существует ни горя, ни радости, ни ненависти, ни любви. Весь мир, в его глазах, есть гроб, могущий служить лишь поводом для бесконечного пустословия.»
Are many settlers Mizrachim? In any case I find the settlements project inanely justified by a religious ideology I don’t believe in and unnecessarily provocative at best. The ‘67 borders are amenable to me, although I’d have the Saudis run the Palestinian state. As for who should be in power, well you know my opinion of democracy.
Many of my friends were (gentile) Persians growing up, and many of them still are. It is entirely feasible that a smart Persian academic, even one committed to Israel’s destruction, might have higher moral worth than a 90 IQ Religious Zionist. Iranian hostility to Israel is the result of a PR exercise by the mullahs, it can evaporate within months of regime change. Palestinian hostility, due to the fundamental nature of dispossession, is much more intractable.
‘My people’ are smart, secular, Ashkenazim, although we have thrown our lot in with some I find much more unsavory. Nevertheless, when it comes to broad principles, Iran isn’t discriminating between the settlement fanatic (few or none of whom seem to have been killed on Saturday) and a version of me in Israel, so there is little choice in whom to support for now.
And you cannot disconnect IQ from moral worth entirely. It is immoral when something beautiful is destroyed by something uglier and more vulgar. This is in part why we find rape so abhorrent, it is why the Mongol horde razing civilization to the ground is such a deeply ingrained (often subconscious) cultural motif. So yes, Bronze Age savagery by a people who have not contributed to the wider human race in a millennium and who would rather live in poverty and squalor than kneel is morally less noble than, say, the settlement of the Americas by Europeans, regardless of the individual moral worth of members of that culture.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
HBD is a fact, what policy implications you draw from it are a function of the rest of your values.
Me? I think we should gene therapy the living shit out of the human population until everyone is at least a 180 IQ Ubermensch, potentially to the limits of human biology and other relevant tradeoffs. Skin color should no more determine your more relevant qualities than the shade of lipstick you choose to wear.
Should. Not does, at present. We look for trillion dollar bills on the pavement, not realizing that it is the pavement. Or at least I hope a bill for a sum so large should reflect it.
I also happen to be less than sympathetic to the accusations of racism of the gaps that provoked the Great Awokening, since any discrepancies are best explained by HBD instead.
Yeah, that's never going to happen. We don't have full control of our genes and I'm going to bet even slight tweaks to skin color will have a measurable effect on intelligence. (In either way. Who knows, maybe 300% melanin will actually make us hyper intelligent or whatever).
Whatever genes you alter to change faces, hair, body size. Literally any structural or outward appearance of a human will also alter their brains. It's all interconnected.
I find this a very dubious assertion, within my limit of understanding of genetics. Which I would hope is better than average, even if I don't claim domain expertise like say, our Chris Pratt Dino Wrangler friend can say.
Yes, DNA is unadulterated spaghetti code, but it's not so intractable that something like melanin production can't be targeted without, a priori, not expecting it to blow up the kidneys of something. If I was designing something, I would look for a way to down regulate melanocyte stimulating hormone, to the degree feasible without say, causing visual problems as seen in albinos.
While skin tone isn't a Mendelian trait, I see no reason to think it can't be managed.
As for other phenotypical traits, it depends, but once again I have reason for optimism, or at least faith in plastic surgery. It doesn't have to be a germline modification, you can probably pull it off in-utero or later, the bones have to grow, unless you have a really bad case of baby face.
And since my end goal is liberation from biology in the form of an existence as a mind upload, then I'd say I don't particularly care either way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And heretofore, HBD proponents have vociferously denied that they consider those of lower genetic IQ to be morally inferior. And yet, here we are.
You also think that less-sophisticated people should be massacred by "more sophisticated" people, if they turn out to be troublesome. The fact that genetic engineering is considerably more hypothetical than massacre engineering raises immediate concerns.
Well, I can't speak for all of them. I just happen to prefer assigning some moral worth on the basis of IQ, and today, race serves as a strong proxy. They could be pink and blue with elephant ears for all I really care. Or a mind upload.
"Should" seems a bit strong if I stop to assess everything I've uttered on the matter today. If there was a peaceful solution, I'd take it, but if there isn't, then I won't complain at all if the Israelis stamp out their opposition instead of letting it fester. Largely because I think the total amount of violence necessary over a longer period will be lower if it's frontloaded.
I certainly wish it were otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
HBD proponents are a heterogeneous group. And if we're talking about 2rafa who seems to have brought it up in this subthread, I'm fairly sure she considers a whole lot of people (including most of us) to be her inferiors in all ways.
Whether there's an "evil gene" (or genes) is in an interesting question, but my guess is that if there is, it's at fixation in the human population. And is a separate thing from IQ. Being stupid doesn't make you evil, though it may make you become more easily convinced that evil things which are not in your self interest actually are.
I certainly don’t consider you my inferior, Nybbler!
At least until the Gobbler model comes out
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
More options
Context Copy link
There's a reason I'm not an Israeli, namely that I think the chances of Israel losing (everything) are much higher than most people, and especially most Jews, recognize. My existence in the diaspora is comfortable enough, and as such (a sign of loyalty, perhaps) I also don't favor additional (or any) American/Western aid for Israel. Nevertheless, both as a Jew and a supporter of civilization in the endless struggle against savagery, barbarism, and low IQ nonsense, I won't shed any tears if the Israelis decide (and successfully ensure) that enough is enough. The Holocaust was a tragedy of history and, though I don't particularly consider German civilization superior to Jewish civilization, we got fucked and many of us paid the price. That is life, and though I have thoughts on the general principles of the matter, I personally harbor no illusions that I am morally superior to a German or Palestinian, nor do I care to be.
I think Jews are mostly quite aware of, and discuss incessantly, Israel lacking strategic depth and being in a precarious situation and having no choice but to preemptively strike etc etc; if anything, they overestimate the threat from its utterly inept or degraded, and frankly well-taught in previous wars, neighbors.
What they do get wrong is the relative danger of being in the Diaspora, because they take deluded Whites lending vocal support to Hamas and other savages too seriously, and extrapolate this incoherent virtue-signaling gibberish to willingness for participating in or enabling Antisemitic violence locally. I appreciate that progressive Jews at, say, Harvard may experience very… interesting emotions right now; but realistically, they're unlikely to ever get hit with more than a variant of anti-white anti-colonial invective from their peers. Hence «there is only one country where it's safe to live while being a Jew» refrain. (Though judging by Twitter and in light of recent events, India might quality).
Then again, I may be overestimating human rationality and pacification again.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough, then, and I apologize for interpreting your comments otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In my more optimistic moments I believe that all the "extermination by Artificial SuperIntelligence" fears will prove to be unfounded, because the sorts of strategies we use to train LLMs will also be used to train future superintelligence to share human values.
In my more pessimistic moments I believe that all the "extermination by Artificial SuperIntelligence" fears will prove to be inevitable, because the sorts of strategies we use to train LLMs will also be used to train future superintelligence to share human values.
More options
Context Copy link
Funny coming from someone like you rather willing to whine about racism, antisemitism while simultaneously pushing your own genocidal and racist supremacist agendas.
Fundamentally your words are hollow and it is BS BS, We Jews are superior (including those of lower IQ and can do as we want.
Like this monstrous inferior savage:
It is true that humans are not equal. And trying to enforce that all groups do equally well is folly. However, there is another way that not all groups are equal. And that is morality.
There is a reason why adults who are smarter are not allowed by any sane society to pray on children who are weaker and lower intelligence.
Some people are cruel, predatory, hypocritical, ingrates, and have all the traits of murderous narcisistic sociopaths. I am not talking hre about da Jews although I think you personally have argued one too many times about carpet bombing middle east and similiar rhetoric although never once been banned for it. Recently you have been promoting the final solution to palestinian problem and genocidal mass murder.
The short of it is that you are willing to destroy civilizations and support attrocities because you are a hateful racist fanatic who lacks decency.
AND when others have even a sane menality critical of your people engaging in this dark racist supremacist path that is pervasive, you whine about racism.
Obviously you wouldn't acceept others treating you by the same coin. Indeed, your whine about nazism is utterly hypocritical considering your only difference is your group you are a racist supremacist for.
I am glad in this instance you show your power level as you have done in others. But trully you are allowed to be this way because of others who are like you.
Anyhow, as you very well know (you are someone who whines about others being racist over petty nonsense when you are this kind of person) the concept but pretend not to, because you are bloodthirsty racist supremacist fanatic, obviously there is a value in certain forms of equality even if the concept of equality going far is utterly idiotic.
And that has to do with rights and equality under the law. Just like we shouldn't let ten dumber people gang up on one smarter person, we should also not allow the later defraud the first. but actually you are no IQ supremacist, having opposed HBDers and having supported AA, but suddenly you become the most hardcore of HBD racist supremacist when it comes to da Jews.
A sane society would not tolerate hateful fanatics like you to promote your propaganda and advocate for warcrimes. Least of all your rhetoric in favor of war crimes and mass murder in the middle east is not unrelated to the millions who died there. And of course your rhetoric in favor of cultural genocide in west, and the vile agendas related to that.
Of course you are contemptible from both a universalistic perspective as a malevolent dishonest predatory and parasitical racist supremacist and a local one. Whether the local funnilly enough applies to pretty much most non jewish groups. And likely those you want to use as goldems against your outgroup.
Wait, what? 2rafa opposing HBDers? I'd have to see the posts to believe it.
I never opposed it (and have pretty much the standard take here, i.e. that the evidence is compelling). As for AA, I think what I said is that HBD and affirmative action aren’t actually mutually exclusive under a tribal spoils system, but again, I don’t think that has much to do with the point he’s trying to make.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is, of course, a justification that one day may be used against peoples less backward than Palestinians. «You are animals in comparison, so we do not admit any wrong in dispossessing you».
It must be nice to belong to the highest average IQ population on the planet. Whatever ideology wins, your side comes out on top.
Eh, I think the use of the word "race" in that quote misleads a bit. All Churchill is really getting across is the old reply to Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Not a very Christian perspective of Churchill, and not one I agree with, but he's not just saying that there's a hierarchy of races, and if you're lower you have no moral claim against your betters.
Yes, he's not a scrub loser to appeal to some predefined theoretically just table of ranks. He is saying instead that this hierarchy is established in a contest of strength; that might makes right through its very utilization. It's an explicitly Hitlerist argument, ironically enough – except it doesn't presuppose proven superiority of Aryans. But this does explain, to some extent, why Hitler believed in such tender kinship with Anglo-Saxons.
(fuckduck9000 would say that this he is exactly correct, as demonstrated by German loss and British victory).
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. That reply is fundamentally repugnant. Bullets, bombs and other horrors exist to punish such foolishness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with rafa. I keep telling you Might Morality and Truth are correlated. As are Weakness, Ignorance and Evil. Parent to child, elder to younger sibling, civilised to barbarian, the stronger is often the wiser.
It’s a strange equivalence op is trying to draw. The more obvious one is that with israeli capabilities , hamas would have killed far more jews in a day than jews ever killed palestinians. palestinians owe their lives to jewish clemency, yet are incapable of it. They are ignorant of their own weakness, and morally childish, which is to say, incompetent and cruel .
I'd gladly witness your culling by a militarily superior race in its quest for Lebensraum, so long as it's explicitly justified with this inane correlational logic.
Despite the triteness of this platitude, correlation really does not imply causation. There are some tenuous reasons for morality to be weakly correlated with formidability, but overwhelmingly it's just due to the fact that peoples of Western Christian extraction are the strongest, have been for centuries, and have recently developed some queer compunctions. Well, this particular mix of character traits isn't globally optimal, and their exalted status isn't going to last much longer. Technologically advanced Chinese, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Mongols, Africans, whatever, wherever (including in your nations, including in their halls of power) will be as ruthless as they need to, and increasingly prove this as your race decays; first they'll bother with some glib chattering, then they'll stop. You are used to mercy and magnanimity tempering realpolitik. You'll cope about power being self-justifying, inherently beautiful and ultimately more True than any morality when those shackles are cast away.
Already happened. And my nazi grandfathers had to witness the full extent of their moral, racial, military and epistemologic inferiority. They fought till destruction because they really believed in the correlation, far more than I do. In a way it vindicated the theory while it destroyed them and their particular beliefs.
When you’re living in your bombed-out capital, your conscience sullied, your army destroyed, your reputation infamous, the universe is trying to tell you something. You can immediately exclude the hypothesis of having done anything right, and of your own superiority.
I don't think realpolitik will triumph if the west falls - people have always resisted the athenians, even when it was hopeless - witness the realists anger at Ukraine. If china dominates, they'll just make their own rules russia and the others will have to obey, and the russians will still be grumbling about 'universalism' .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not necessarily. If Hamas had Israeli capabilities, they would have different incentives than they currently do. It's possible that they would decide "yeah let's kill as many Jews as we can", but it's also possible that they would decide "you know what, given that the Jews aren't actually an existential threat to us, maybe we should chill out instead of turning most of the world against us by massacring people".
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
Perhaps all these shall happen...but not before the end of the world
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given the comments here and elsewhere, I very much doubt any sincerity when it comes to the alleged 'clemency' on Israels part. Apparently, the only reason jews in Israel have not ethnically cleansed, genocided, holocausted or otherwise brutalized their enemy is because it's a bad tactic at the moment. Because, I would suppose from your comment, there are stronger, morally wiser, more competent and actually merciful people out there that prevent the childish and inane racist power fantasies of hateful zionist jews to come to light.
This is a real mask off moment. Zionists wish suffering and death on women and children. They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs. Everything they allege a nazi was they wish they could be.
Most of your comment falls on the wrong side of the rules, I think, but this line in particular seems like standard-issue hyperbolic propaganda. Like, show me one instance where this looks literally true, a single instance of Israel selecting "the most torturous way possible" to kill "1000 innocents" for any reason at all, much less to "save a single one of theirs."
This is (apparently!) a hotly contested issue, so I was feeling mildly reluctant to moderate you in spite of the overall badness of the comment, but that sentence in particular just struck me as entirely too much heat, directed toward your outgroup, for what looks like no light at all.
More options
Context Copy link
Evil is usually a bad tactic. The holocaust really slowed down the german war effort. I wish they'd understood how bad genocide is tactically. They could have achieved more objectives for less blood.
Anyway, who's mask off? rafa is always for culling the young male population anywhere, anytime.
I don't recognize the claims of the indians or palestinians , and I don't even need to call them savages, - all they have are earlier claims of conquest that have been nullified by more recent ones.
This is a common idea, but actually the Holocaust barely affected the German war effort. The whole thing used only a very small fraction of the German manpower and logistics capacity, required no rare materials, and may have even paid for itself by providing slave labor.
What do you call a very small fraction? Seems to me large parts of the military were involved in it, or otherwise 'pacifying' to allow the einsatzgruppen to do their work. All of this wouldn't even be necessary if they just played the kind liberators against soviet oppression.
But that's not even the worst waste: Without the antisemitic obsession , jews would be the usual highly productive workforce, like in WWI, and perhaps they could build an atomic bomb for germany, or find another Haber-Bosch, or Fischer-Tropf process. Slave labor benefits, or the value of their gold teeth, are a joke by comparison.
Sorry for the really late reply but yes, I think that you are right that the overall Nazi anti-Jew campaign probably slowed their war effort by, for example, driving a bunch of scientists out of the country. When I wrote my reply, I thought that you were referring specifically to the wartime Holocaust that started around 1941.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is the only real justification that matters. I have (as I have said many times) great sympathy for the Palestinians; their armed struggle is justified on grounds of self defense and historical humiliation. Their war crimes are brutal, but expected. If they fight to the end, they’ll die with honor, at least by their own standards (the only ones that matter, in that case).
I think if you take a civilizational view, there ought to be some kind of respect for national achievement. But the thing about war is that if you lose, you probably weren’t really as good as you thought. If Israel is defeated, the Jewish political project will be over, and they can be considered a defeated people who wasted their opportunity for statehood, at least for now. A tragedy, perhaps, but one of many in history. So it does go both ways.
Yes "a tragedy perhaps" but one that can be forgoten and bypassed. Promoted by someone like you who are milking grudges constantly. The point here you are promoting is that the defeat of Palestinians which is more likely now can be forgoten. Not about Israel.
If you really cared about forgetting tragedies, you wouldn't be milking the holocaust.
The issue here is that incredibly immoral sociopathic Jewish supremacists and other bad actors are free to destroy as they please instead of being restrained through accountability. Like, if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for hate speech, it aint most people you whine about whose rhetoric counters your extremism and therefore promote a valuable service to society even if some can go too far, but the cimarafas of the world are the primary faction of the most malevolent abuse of rights today.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators. Birds of a feather and reveals the fake nature of rationalism which underneath lies hypocritical extreme tribalism. Like the other israel firster and backers of the racist supremacist democrats the fraudster Sam Bankman Fried.
I don't remember having ever seen 2rafa try to milk the Holocaust. Maybe she has, somewhere, but I'm at least pretty sure I would have noticed by now if she did it on a regular basis.
I have the sense that you might be projecting your mental concept of what Jewish supremacists are like onto everyone who agrees even partially with things that you consider to be Jewish supremacy adjacent, even if those people do not actually express the ideas that you think they are expressing.
More options
Context Copy link
Well no, it's no accident because the mods here ding people for personal attacks, and rafa didn't attack anyone. Besides which, a motte where she can't say what she thinks is a worse motte. It is because I am rational that I allow her shitty argument - so I can argue against it - just as much as it is because of her rationality that she allows my shitty arguments - so she can argue against them.
More options
Context Copy link
You have a bunch of comments in the mod queue. Most of them, like this one, this one, and this one, are just raging ad hominems.
If @2rafa was advocating literal genocide (which I'm pretty sure she's not), people are allowed to argue for abominable things here. That's why going on about how much you hate Jews hasn't gotten you into trouble until now, when you lost your self control and made it personal.
You're being really obnoxious and antagonistic and clearly cruising for a banning. Since you posted so many comments like this in such a short time, I'm guessing you knew you'd get modded and figured you'd get your attacks in while you can.
Banned for a week because this is your first formal mod action, but if you come back for another round of "Flame people before I get banned" I'll just delete your posts and permaban you. If you actually want to continue to participate here, get yourself under control.
Since you are making a moral arguement condemning me as hateful and defending cimarafa it is fair to ask what cimerafa advocates if it isn't genocide.
It isn't hard to connect the quote from Churchil. Or this quote by cimarafa
https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/145883?context=8#context
along with other rhetoric from them and various people here. Bloodthirsty rhetoric is abominable but opposing it and calling for restraint is correct.
And in fact, it is the pervasive view worldwide, was more popular in the USA in the past to an extend. In addition with a decent size of negativity towards Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians but without such negativity leading to the same dehumanization against Israelis than we see against Palestinians. Well except some quarters of the world. And of course, you will find in much of the world plenty of negativity towards Hamas. Anyway, negativity up to a point is a moderating pressure on those who would behave badly without it. But it does require a certain objectivity by those who throw it around.
You attack me of being hateful and I will be defending myself but it is those who have allowed the dehumanization of convenient targets and the advocation of atrocities under racist supremacist ideology while being ban happy to dissenters have genuinely been reprehensible.
And in relevance to the Israel and Gaza conflict, in fact it is precisely because of such decisions by people in control of media and social media that so much blood has been spilled in the middle east for the last 20 years.
Also directly related to the culture war reaching the extreme directions it reached. If there were more responsible and ethical and even handed people in charge, and gatekept out unethical virtue signaling extremists, a lot less blood would have been spilled.
Alas the gatekeeping has been done by the extremists with a manichaistic vision of the world who combine being extreme racists who with the pretensions of being antiracists out to destroy hatred. In fact they hate those who are much more moderate than them and perceive that moderation as hatred.
One that is less hostile on groups than the rhetoric against "inferior peoples". Or is it ok for people to advocate against palestnians and not ok to advocate against people who have influence in media, and social media and forums? Well the later is more in line to being against hatred than for it.
This is not a forum nor has ever been a forum where any political rhetoric goes but one where the moderators have always put a thump on the scales. And while I will be responding in a calmer manner, I will never censor the view that is completely against this ideology I speak about. Plus, it matters what opinion people of influence express. Even in lower importance settings with low inluence. And what views do you express? Well, you have ignored all this bloodthirsty rhetoric even some you linked and more besides and other and you only saw fit to imagine hatred against Jews fitting to comment about. When in a conflict when radicalism in favor of Jews that uses the ideology of Jewish superiority and Jews doing no wrong as an asset, negativity is the necessary antidote.
Even though the actual extreme racist rhetoric and advocation for murder here was obviously not against Jews but Palestinians and other groups deemed inferior by the people promoting said rhetoric.
Personally attacking me as hating the Jews when in response to all of this my view was that Jews have a serious problem of racism is you abusing your position as a moderator to personally attack your outgroup based on your sympathies.
It is actually impressive how with so much provocation my rhetoric towards groups like the Jews was restrained to only condemn pervasive racism as a problem and also outside of Jews in general being critical of those advocating of atrocities without myself siding with those who have abused Jews, like Hamas.
I am actually proud of how even handed my views are in comparison with who I am dealing with and the fact I did push back on their hateful rhetoric that promotes atrocities.
But sure, I will stand for the truth with less personal criticisms against the people who advocate for atrocities here.
Now in regards to the issue of who is the hateful in the current political environment.
The reality is that if virtue signalling racist extremists of the politically correct manner where to deradicalize, stopped their propaganda and moderate and listen to the many reasonable criticisms instead of slandering it all as hatred, the world would be a less racist, and hateful place. The people who are reasonable are never going to be perfect to the standards of extremists who see criticism and negativity towards their ingroup as a sin.
This of course applies also to Israel and Gaza conflict and zionism in general. And yes it does applies to groups like Hamas as well.
Plus, human beings are always going to be emotional beings even those who are reasonable enough to qualify as reasonable people. And for the unreasonable filled with fanaticism to lose, the reasonable need to match them in determination and will.
Less provocative racism which we shouldn't appease to, will lead to less proportionate hostility. And will reduce conflict being inflamed. But this would require to have people in positions of power who put their influence to good use for once and gatekeep those who don't. This is me making an observation about the culture war, certainly less flaming the outgroup than the people calling for commiting attrocities, or inferior peoples deserving it. And pertinent to your condemnation of me as hateful. Which is dangerous rhetoric from you considering the willingness of people to harm those perceived as hateful on the Jews.
Pressure in these directions is necessary for less hatred.
I am very much willing to accept the groups I complain about moderating, and have no problem with consistent standards but it would make me happy and consider it a victory for my position. I reject your framing. If those I call progressive supremacists or Jewish supremacists (which excludes Jews who aren't Jewish supremacists and includes non Jews who are Jewish supremacists who I have been quite negative about) abadoning their ideology and accepting that their rights ends where others begins, and vice versa, that their rights also exist, is a great general compromising point. In Israel it would along with far more restraint in dealing with Palestinians (although opposing Hamas is in line with protecting their own rights) and acceptance of how warcrimes of past, present and future are a sin also include of course ending settlements. And I would rather that the racist ideology of Jews did no wrong, Christians and Europeans or non Jews are to blame for interethnic conflict to be abadoned and not tolerated, but without pushing the opposite extreme.
Obviously this position is more moderate and pro Israeli and Jews , than the people I have been arguing with are pro Palestinian. And more pro Jewish than those promoting the Jews didn't do or are doing wrong position. But what makes you angry?
Less "It isn't happening its all in your hateful conspiring head and it is good that it is happening". More "I aknowledge that we or the progressive stack group might have erred in this manner and this isn't how things ought to go and here is how things should change, but lets be fair about it and not go to the other extreme".
Of course, not only many of their critics are reasonable people who are opposing the most pervasive extremism in our time but also even those who are similarly extreme which I am also not a fan of, can in fact make legitimate points too. Indeed, even with the people I complain about, I wouldn't say they are wrong to note that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting it are radicalized too. Which I funnily enough, got zero pushback in observing that fact. It's because people willing to advocate aggressively in favor of Palestinians mistreating Jews are rare here over the opposite.
As far as the more pervasive extremism of the day in western countries, this applies to both racist tribalists for their own groups in line with progressive stack groups and we observe the groups where it is taboo to object to their racism, but not taboo for them to be racist to naturally behave the worse. This is not going to lead to reasonable people objecting being zen monks, and rightfully so.
If it is taboo and racist to oppose the racism of Jews but not taboo for Jews or even non Jews to be racists in favor of Jews, then you got a problem of racism in favor of Jews. Naturally you will get much more of what you incentivize.
Not that complicated and not that hard for people to have a more even handed norm than that, in line with the golden rule. Not hard if people want to do that and much easier if they are incentivized to do that and we put might in service of right instead of defining what is right by might.
And it applies also to the phenomenon I have spent some time talking about which is racist supremacists for a different ethnic group. Note, that I got only a problem with any sort of tribalists for any group if it is above a certain point. It is reasonable for people to like their group. Even handedness is about avoiding certain massive bad behavior, about putting red lines respected reciprocally. It isn't about eliminating racism in an utopian manner that predictably leads to people forgiving the massive and obsessing over the irrelevant.
Not tolerating big problems does include not tolerating the view that inferior peoples should be destroyed.
And it isn't a personal attack but simply a fact that various posters here promote said racist supremacist rhetoric. Completely fair in discussing the culture war to note this fact and acknowledge it as a negative development. How is that radicalized rhetoric not provocative and attention worthy but only the response to it?
Personally I find that it isn't virtuous, or praiseworthy to be silent in line with the more pervasive racist extremism. Nor is it courageous to condemn and punch down on the politically correct targets.
And it is also fair to see the rhetoric in line of mass murder, or carpet bombing the area and ethnically cleansing Palestinians as genocide.
Is there a room in opposition to this ideology and rhetoric? Or are you going to cover with it as a moderator because you sympathize with that faction and paint opposition as hateful? Will you use the position as moderator to impose your perspective?
If you can paint me as hateful, and call this fair, I can only fairly completely reject this framing and say just as fairly as your statement that I stand against hatred you sympathize with, so that is what I advocated here for. So I explain my position over the easy slander.
And I have important reason to do so, because you can get away with your sympathies in the current political environment, for now. While those who are rather more reasonable than you can find themselves mistreated. And you know it. Of course things can change and change in a reasonable direction than the opposite extreme.
Obviously, when we got rather extreme rhetoric against general outgroups here and people promoting extreme rhetoric of their ingroups doing no wrong, others should respond.
Still, in a calmer manner, so there is less of an excuse. So I will change the way I express my values, I won't compromise on being critical of what I ought to be criticizing.
By the way, I don't see the point of you deleting my few posts when you attack me. Isn't this a way for you to paint me in any manner as you please?
Criticism that opposes bloodthirsty fanaticism in fact it is incredibly important to do so and censoring it is feeding a dangerous crocodile. And lack of it has lead to repeated tragedies, while those doing so might be arrogant and contemptuous of those wiser, not knowing what they are doing, when they create interesting times they too will be affected.
As for the general problem of hatred of our times. Those who need to change their ways and behave in a an ethical manner, to avoid their gigantic bias and to stop advocating for attrocities, won't do it when those who are in charge also share their ideology and participate, or enable it. When pushback doesn't exist and in fact it is opposed. So, the key issue here and is to gatekeep better and have ethical people be those in charge who are intolerant of this kind of behavior.
I will consider it a success against hatred if the rhetoric of those who can't coexist with other ethnic groups and don't tolerate their continued existence and are greedy to dominate others are drowned out by those opposing it. Therefore those who would support destroying and oppressing the other ethnic groups stay silent, or actually through incentives never arrive in positions that they are more psychologically susceptible to fall into.
You weren't modded for hating Jews, you were modded for ad hominem attacks on other posters. End of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's also the possibility of just reading through a thread and responding to everything that drew his ire as he read it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where did you get the info that 2rafa and the moderators are """birds of a feather"""?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link