domain:nfinf.substack.com
GBRK
2d ago
A rare return from the field of economics is the fact known for >200 years that increasing the supply of labor literally only ever benefits the ownership class.
All your objections are empirically wrong. HDI has risen over time, coinciding with the greatest increase in labor supply in the history of the planet. And in general, GDP is correlated with population growth
The more laborers you have, the greater the economies of scale, the more innovations you can sustain, the more surplus you generate.
GBRK
2d ago
I don't know that a creedal nation can stay coherent,
How many grains of sand does it take to form a heap?
"Coherent" is, ironically, an incoherent target. Rather than create a few hard rules, it makes more sense to define a number of overton windows and accept that they're going to shift over time... but within a self-correcting framework that advantages particular kinds of evolution.
I think I disagree. If you have a nation that's 98% Catholic, facing the importation of a sizeable population of Muslims, with some Middle-Eastern Christians sprinkled in, that seems like a clear example of excluding people who share your creed being to your benefit.
Assuming I had a creedal nation like I wanted, there would be particular mechanisms in place to enforce that creed, which people against that creed would likely be unable to tolerate. but if muslims really want to come to a country where you have to attend church on sundays to be able to vote, then I'll take the win with grace, and welcome all the soon-to-be-converts.
(apply this to your capitalist/communist objection too.)
It's particularly strange to hear it from a Catholic.
???
I think God is willing to personally intervene on behalf of my religious community... and you think it's strange that I'm confident? I think it would be stranger if I wasn't! The truth is an asymmetric weapon. If I'm right, then I should be confident that I'll win. Not in the short term, maybe, but in a general, cosmic sense. And if I'm wrong... then I should have no fear of being set right!
This is a thing where my brain just declines to recognize the danger. Even aside from the strength issue, most 12 year old girls are just not terribly coordinated.
My thinking is less from playfighting girls, and more from a childhood spent playing with knives and cutting myself a fair bit in the process. Sharp knives require very little force to cut or to pierce, and the motions needed are natural and instinctive. Fuck up the disarm and you can do all the cutting yourself, just bumping into the edge whilst trying to get to the limb behind it. And sure, a tweener girl is likely to have the aggressive mindset to go on the offense, and may be uncoordinated enough that you can just grab her wrist before she can flinch, and probably that knife is even pretty dull because she probably doesn't know how to sharpen it. Probably.
My claim is not that a girl so armed is certain or even likely to win a fight with an adult man. She is not. My argument is that a tweener girl brandishing a ~7-inch chef's knife is making a very serious threat, because a knife can hurt you very badly with very little force.
The marker test is going to tell you mostly about the point. Get a cardboard box and a hot-glue gun, glue together two layers of cardboard and then cut out the knife shape with a boxcutter. paint the edge with food coloring or acrylic paint or whatever. tell her she gets ice cream if she gets a line on you. there's a big difference between trying to get past a quarter-inch of marker tip, and trying to get past six or seven inches of blade.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
The screenshot is right there in my original post, but the source is the anons following the case, so it still could be a TracingWoodgrainesque hoax. I wish the local media could get the girls' side of the story but they're all awfully quiet on that.
GBRK
2d ago
Instead of psychoanalyzing me, tell me how proving "who started it" would actually have any bearing on the logic of my argument. You want to make this a discussion about "who started it." I'm pointing out that that would be pointless because-- among other reasons-- you are not even attempting to accurately describe events. If you truly thought the question was central you would acknowledge what actually happened, that gives rise to your opposition's counterarguments-- and then dismiss those counterarguments by establishing why a particular framework to decide "who started it" is generally useful. But, spoiler alert, that wouldn't work-- because I'm glad norms are being destroyed, and I don't care who took the first step up the escalation ladder.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
Did the adults actually throw the kid to the ground and kick her in the head? Is there any evidence of this in the video or from the aftermath: dirt on her clothes, scrapes or bruises, bloody nose, split lip, any evidence of physical harm?
The GSG excerpt above talks about three girls; the two sisters in the
Someone else in the thread has cited hospital records of treatment for a concussion, so it looks like there was in fact violence inflicted on at least one of the girls.
GBRK
2d ago
They might not conceive of their position as such, but in practice they're in favor of letting in every refugee who claims to be part of the alphabet. Meanwhile, they're mostly in favor of taking away the privileges of citizenship from groups like, for example, nazis. (They might not want to change their citizenship status on paper, but the powers citizenship confers are more important than the actual accounting value.)
Again, I don't believe in their creed, but I agree with them that in principle, someone with the right creed should be allowed the privileges of citizenship (after some time spent proving themselves) regardless of ancestry, and that people granted the privileges of citizenship should be inculcated with particular values.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
If she'd taken off while Lola was arming herself, the video more or less adds up?
If this happened they way the anons / crowdfunders describe, I'd guess she took off after Lola showed up. The dude was tormenting Ruby, Lola comes back armed and tells him to leave her alone, he turns around, takes one look and says "oh, ain't that cute, let me get my phone, I have to record it".
jkf
2d ago
Did the adults actually throw the kid to the ground and kick her in the head? Is there any evidence of this in the video or from the aftermath: dirt on her clothes, scrapes or bruises, bloody nose, split lip, any evidence of physical harm?
The GSG excerpt above talks about three girls; the two sisters in the video, plus their friend Ruby -- who was allegedly attacked. If she'd taken off while Lola was arming herself, the video more or less adds up?
GBRK
2d ago
And which location is that?
[Generic Midwestern City]. Founded by fur traders interacting with native americans, then settled by an admixture of english-descended and german-descended immigrants (who were definitely not a homogenous culture at that time), then settled again in successive waves by the great (african american) migration, by the italian and irish migrations, by latin american migrations, and now most recently by an indian migration. We've been what you call "Multikulti" for pretty much our entire existence. And that's essentially ordinary for anywhere that isn't some podunk town in the middle of nowhere.
IIRC one comment here talked about taking away her hatchet and ignored the knife
Whoever said that had it exactly ass-backwards, unless she's a surprisingly talented sharpener in her spare time -- that kind of ax isn't even supposed to be very sharp, they work better for splitting wood if they have a somewhat obtuse edge (compared to a knife or something). I doubt she could break the skin with that one even, and a skinny 12 y.o. can't generate enough blunt force to do much damage unless you offered her your noggin or something.
Grab her knife arm and twist it behind her back, end of story.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
2d ago
End of Summer BJJ Journey Thoughts
-- Belts are dumb. I've reached the point where I can go with a lot of the blue belts in the gym... by the convenient expedient that the gym recently promoted a whole bunch of guys to blue belt. I'm still barely touching the guys who were blue belts last year, but a lot of the new ones I can roll even with, and some of them I've been catching pretty well lately. I'll say this here on the anonymous internet: there's a couple guys I really don't think should have gotten promoted at all, they're just not that good, I beat up on them consistently. I don't feel like I'm anywhere near knowing enough to get any kind of promotion, and I kind of hope I never do, or at least not for a long time. The belt system invented in Judo has been brilliant marketing, it's been adapted all over the place from the Six Sigma to Krav Maga, even a pretty simple sport like Muay Thai has some kind of fakakta armband system, because it works, it sells, people put in effort to get the belt as a certification of their skill level. The attraction of concrete standards of advancement is irresistible, but on the margins like any classification it is pretty meaningless.
-- More and more I'm trying to find the moves that work for me and hunt them. At first I overindexed advice not to force stuff, and wound up trying to hit the absolute optimal move my opponent was giving me, and constantly trying stuff I only half knew how to do. Now I'm taking more of a flow chart approach, where in every spot I have one or two moves I'm comfortable with that I aim for. And that's lead to way more success, not just with the moves I'm aiming for, but seeing openings appear for moves that I couldn't hit before. For the longest time I basically never hit armbars, I'd try to drop one in and lose it, to the point where I got gunshy trying them because I didn't want to lose postion. Instead now I'm hunting americanas from the moment I get into side control, and in the process I chase them into a position where the armbar is right there on a platter for me. This is probably wildly obvious stuff, but I had to learn it the hard way, because I'm stupid.
-- I've realized that every matchup is decided in half guard for me. I'm actually pretty decent at stealing back half guard from side control or mount, or pulling half guard on the way down when I've lost the takedown battle. And all my passing game is station-to-station, passing to half guard then passing from there. The game gets decided in half guard, if I can escape from half guard to a better position I win, if I get stuck in half guard I eventually lose. So I've been trying to study more half guard techniques and try them out. Part of the problem is again passivity. Just making a point of fighting as soon as I get to half guard to get to a knee shield is a huge improvement, where before I tended to settle in and let myself get flattened. I feel like with a good half guard game, I'll be much closer to my goal of being able to give a good roll to everyone in the gym.
-- My standup game is embarrassing to me. I'm getting good enough to stall for a while, but I'm having very little success getting people down in tough rounds. When I do get anyone down, it's more that they pull guard because I've achieved a dominant position and they want to get it to the ground. I've been doing well with arm drags, and pinch headlocks, but I need to finish. And I've still yet to hit a shot successfully. Another area I need to improve and be less passive.
-- On the bright side, I've come home grinning ear to ear after a few just soul stealing wins over guys who thought they were better than me. On the one hand I'll do anything I can to help this guy out, I give guys rides home, help them move, give stuff away in the gym group chat, I love these guys. On the other hand, there is no better feeling than watching the disappointment and anger fill his eyes after I snatch the ankle lock when he didn't see it coming. Watching someone pack up and leave after falling into the kimura, because they're just so disgusted.
The question is whether, after you've wrecked her, you're going to find you've got an artery gushing out.
And his answer is "no". Guys... I used to be a shoved-in-the-locker nerd, and the stuff people are saying here makes me want to start shoving people in lockers. We're talking about early-teenage girl here. Sure, if she goes into berserker mode, loses all social inhibitions and fear of pain, taps into some forgotten animal instinct that tells here which vulnerable spots to go for, she just might get lucky and do actual damage. Now look at the actual video, none of these things are likely to happen by my estimation, but even if they did, I'm putting my money on the adult man kicking her teeth in, and walking away without a scratch.
The most likely way for the guy to get hurt would be the "feigning vulnerability" route that Iconochasm mentioned.
zoink
2d ago
Today a fairly small Wagner force can go on safari and take a whole African country, they can go in on the Central African Republic and take their gold mines, take the country's foreign policy. Wagner is not the A-team of white military power, they're at least two tiers below Ukraine, who is at least two tiers below a big power like the US or China. Colonialism was, is and will remain fairly easy against blacks, it's only that colonialism has gone out of fashion.
And in the 1990's Executive Outcomes could quickly win wars in sub-Saharan Africa until the US/UN told them to stop.
Well I certainly would never claim that "men can be women" or other such rhetorical nonsense. What I mean by "transgenderism" is the right of individuals to alter their sex characteristics with hormones, without government interference. Whether that makes someone a "real woman' is a meaningless question. Obviously it doesn't change one's chromosomal sex. But it does change things in superficial ways that do matter to some extent.
But it's not real. "Trans-Men" aren't men and "Trans-Women" aren't women.
Okay, I'll stipulate to this meaningless tautology. I don't know what it means or why it's important to you, but sure.
It's so very obviously a social contagion, a fashion, a delusion.
This is the only statement you've made that is testable and has real-world implications. but you've also not made an argument for it. I don't have strong evidence that transgenderism isn't a social contagion, but the burden of proof would be on you. To me, it is obvious that some people would be unhappy with the biological sex they ended up with at birth. Gender is an intrinsically important part of the human experience, and our bodies all have the potential to express different secondary sex characteristics to the ones that are activated during our development.
I think transgenderism is certainly a social development that has resulted from the technological development of hormones and surgeries, as well as the relaxation of puritanical values. It certainly can spread from one person to another in that people can learn that hormones exist, or that other people are going by different pronouns, and decide they want that for themselves. But to me that doesn't seem like it meets the definition of a social contagion.
If 5% of the population likes the idea of changing genders, and then the knowledge that changing genders is possible gradually diffuses through society, I would expect the growth rate of transgenderism to follow a logistic curve. At the beginning it could look like exponential growth, but not everyone can be infected with transgenderism, only those 5%. To me that is not a social contagion, that is a pre-existing demand being satisfied by a new product.
I've previously argued here that Christianity is a social contagion, and in my opinion it is the most infectious social contagion of all time. In a matter of a few hundred years, it went from an obscure middle eastern religion to a global phenomenon that has reached even remote uncontacted tribes in the amazon. And it's no surprise, given that Christianity has built-in mechanisms for perpetuating itself. Once someone is converted to Christianity, they attempt to convert everyone they interact with. Does transgenderism have a mechanism like that? In my opinion, no.
roystgnr
2d ago
I feel confident that I would wreck any 12 year old girl in a fight, knife or no.
Surely this isn't in question. The question is whether, after you've wrecked her, you're going to find you've got an artery gushing out.
The old saw about how "the loser of a knife fight dies in the street, the winner dies in the hospital" probably wasn't taking scared little girls into account, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was still enough of a risk to worry about. IIRC one comment here talked about taking away her hatchet and ignored the knife; slip up like that in reality and you're likely to end up with one hand holding a hatchet and the other hand holding the first hand's sliced up wrist.
The kid's probably too young to have heard the phrase down the road, not across the street, right? You'd probably be fine.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2d ago
Well, are Chav girls known to be super violent? I put 'Chav girls UK violent attack stranger' into my search engine and all I find is the Southport stabbings, grooming gangs...
Are we really supposed to believe that these white teen girls are going around menacing, only for heroic Turks from Bulgaria to stand up in defence of decency? Man bites dog, I want to see evidence that this is a sort of thing that happens.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Her behavior. I don't know how to describe it, but she's not acting like the sort of person that has it in her to stab someone.
Before getting into the comment proper I think I should add this to the top: I am feeling some suspicion that you are quoting LLM hallucinations because your Bear Bryant quote doesn't seem to exist on the internet and your Harper's Weekly quote is actually from Current Literature. This seems unlikely given your comment history but it's unclear how it ended up happening otherwise. Could you dispel such concerns by explaining where you got those quotes from?
Are you going to lavish this attention on disproving the load-bearing quotes? Do you also think that I'm misquoting Bear Bryant and Cap Anson and the NYT editorial board?
Lets start with the full NYT article in question:
Pugilists as Race Champions (The New York Times, 1910)
One of our correspondents, the Principal of a negro college in Texas and himself a negro, called attention in an admirably written letter, which we printed yesterday, to what is undoubtedly the most important aspect of the Jeffries-Johnson prizefight.
The people who shudder at the "brutality" of such battles are somewhat unnecessarily sensitive to the spectacular effect which a little blood from slight wounds can produce when spread over a large surface, and they much exaggerate the pain caused by blows received while in a state of high excitement. What Mr. Blackshear sees and fears is the certainty that the fight, however it comes out, will have the deplorable effect of intensifying racial antagonisms and of making race problems more difficult of solution.
If the black man wins, thousands and thousands of his ignorant brothers will misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbors. If the negro loses, the members of his race will be taunted and irritated because of their champion’s downfall.
Of course neither of the pugilists is in any true sense representative of his people, but both will inevitably be treated so. Their fight will decide nothing except the strength and skill of two men of no importance, but it will be treated as deciding much more, and therefore it wakens well-justified anxieties.
This seems...straightforwardly correct. The fight demonstrated nothing besides the abilities of the two combatants and to a much lesser degree a bit of evidence regarding the physical capabilities of their two races. However some people were treating them as champions of their races that would "prove" the superiority of the winning race, transmuting sport rivalries into racial rivalries. Sports riots are bad enough without bringing race into it. No matter who won they predicted it would inflame racial conflict, and indeed the aftermath of the fight saw nationwide race riots.
There is also a certain irony that, in a post about how "racist Uncle Roys" "weren’t of the opinion that there were mostly-overlapping-bell-curves with different averages, they were of the opinion that blacks couldn’t compete with whites in any field", one of the "load-bearing quotes" had no problems printing and agreeing with a letter from the president of a black college. Based on the fact that you think the NYT cared a lot about the result when the point of the article was that either outcome would be bad, I'm guessing you just grabbed the cherrypicked quote from somewhere like Wikipedia without reading the article. This has the consequence of flattening and distorting their view to fit into a modern narrative. This sort of thing is why I recommended against trying to understand historical beliefs this way.
Bear Bryant, arguably the greatest college coach of all time, said that “The quarterback has to be a leader, and I don’t think a colored boy can do the things we need done at quarterback"
Searching for this quote has one result: this thread. Chopping it up into subquotes does no better. Searching finds discussions about whether he was racist that would have reason to bring up such a quote, but they don't. At this point I start to wonder if your comment is "LLM assisted" garbage filled it with hallucinations that I'm wasting my time by responding to, but I already wrote the NYT part and you otherwise seem to be a legitimate poster so I guess I'll keep going. Even if it was real it's not really a terribly strong statement, people in sports make dubious assertions like that all the time and nobody finds it significant if they're wrong when they don't involve politically-relevant identity categories.
Hugh Fullerton and Cap Anson often stated they lacked the discipline to stand the strain of the big leagues
This is too vague to look up whether the actual quote is real and searching keywords like "cap anson black discipline" doesn't find anything.
Harper’s Weekly in 1910 argued that “The superiority of the brain of the white man … is undisputed by all authorities… [A] white man fighting with a negro … ought not to be defeated if the contest be prolonged.”
That quote isn't from Harper's Weekly, it's from the article "The Psychology of the Prize Fight" from "Current Literature". Also, while I wasn't able to get the full original article, this has a fuller quote and already indicates you left out some context. They also said "Expert opinion has inclined to the theory that the negro is the strongest man physically" and your quote clipped the relevant middle of the sentence from "[A] white man fighting with a negro to whom he is not physically inferior ought not to be defeated if the contest be prolonged.", so they don't seem as confident in the outcome as portrayed. Look, there are countless modern sports articles invoking scientific findings to make highly dubious claims about sports. This is not something that particularly reflects on either the ideas they invoke or even the general beliefs of the public. It reflects that there is demand for both sports coverage and for a subset of that coverage to contextualize it in terms of science.
Fundamentally, despite the fake or misleading quotes, I'm sure you can indeed find plenty of historical quotes that were both straightforwardly racist and incorrect. I just don't think that means very much, because "a lot of people who believe in X say things about it that are wrong or grossly exaggerated" is true for pretty much any X. And then of course it's easy to get your impression of historical views and events from people who have hammered them into the ill-fitting mold of their own ideological convenience.
Interesting post. I checked and (to my surprise at least) there are world-class black fencers too. But let's put sports to one side, what about the subject that sport emulates and trains for: war?
War is not merely physically demanding but the most intellectually demanding test there is. It requires large-scale, long-range coordination of thousands, tens of thousands even millions of men (their food and supplies), it requires marksmanship, codemaking and codebreaking, optics and stabilizers, barrelforging, chemical industry, metallurgy, tactics and strategy, endless sophistication.
And war is dominated by whites and east Asians. Only once did a black army inflict a major campaign-ending defeat on a white army: the Italians vs Abyssinia in 1896. The Abyssinians had a 5:1 advantage in numbers and French/Russian rifles and smashed the fairly small Italian force. I chock Haiti up to disease, most of the whites who went off to fight there died of tropical illness rather than black military capacity (disease was sub-Saharan Africa's greatest shield against imperialism).
In 1935 the Italians came back and smashed Abyssinia (who were ironically getting a little aid from Nazi Germany, at that point they were unhappy with Italy over objecting to their desired annexation of Austria). The Abyssinians were using Mauser rifles, Hotchkiss machineguns, European weapons imported from whites, they had no major military industry and still don't today.
All other African states were conquered by a relatively modest white effort. There is no black equivalent to Japan thrashing the British Empire in Singapore, actually attacking and conquering a white-held region rather than merely defending their independence. They were using Japanese weapons, aircraft and warships. They produce their own aircraft today. There are no black fighter jets, not even license-built aircraft.
Today a fairly small Wagner force can go on safari and take a whole African country, they can go in on the Central African Republic and take their gold mines, take the country's foreign policy. Wagner is not the A-team of white military power, they're at least two tiers below Ukraine, who is at least two tiers below a big power like the US or China. Colonialism was, is and will remain fairly easy against blacks, it's only that colonialism has gone out of fashion.
The colonial wars fought by white powers like Portugal that ended with Portuguese defeat were primarily political defeats, not military ones. Now a political defeat is still a defeat (war is about politics first and foremost). But the military capacity is there to force surrender. If you just go in and massacre the other side, eventually the population will submit. Mongol tactics work provided you retain military superiority. Chemical weapons are almost perfectly suited to fight guerrillas. Only the international community will likely impose sanctions and there'll be domestic political problems with massacring, so this isn't an option. Political constraints with regard to democracy, nationalism and freedom make it very hard to fight a war, motivate soldiers and implement a coherent, effective strategy. Thus overwhelmingly superior military Coalition forces lost in Afghanistan. Thus superior Israeli forces are making no headway in Gaza as you point out.
Back to my main point, war is like STEM Nobels and heavy industry, chess, esports, founding unicorn companies, invention generally... it requires large investment over a long term, patient maintenance, specialized skills and deep thought. Whites and East Asians are the best at it and much better than blacks. On a micro level, there's Sailer's law. When violence is inflicted ineptly (many shot but few killed) it's usually black but when there is a big body count, it's usually white.
This warfare gap is a key fact where the antiracists are consistently wrong, rather like how I was wrong about fencing (which after all is mostly about the body no matter how much we romanticize and intellectualize it) and ye olde racist was wrong about sport. The Cold War powers assumed that Africa was quickly going to become prosperous and powerful, it would be wise to curry favour with them. Thus 'strategic' ploys all around Africa by various sides. But sub-Saharan Africa remains weak and poor today, albeit with ballooning populations. They usually find some way to squander their resource endowments, Botswana excepted. And even Botswana is mostly HIV-ridden subsistence farmers with diamond mines - a Sub-Saharan success story up until synthetic diamonds become more popular. Raw resources and key waterways remain the most important things in Africa, in strategic terms. Trying to curry favour with weak, poor states that routinely collapse is not really effective. You can just muscle in and take the gold or oil, it's not that hard.
At the end of the day, basketball does not matter. Athletics does not matter. Fencing does not matter. Boxing does not matter. Whether you can reach the rank of general in the US Army does not matter (it's more to do with politics than performance), whether you can be a CEO does not matter. There are lots of crap CEOs, judges and generals. What does matter is warfare and all that stands behind warfare (like wealth and technology). Warfare is the difference between an Israeli living more or less securely and a Palestinian who got their land taken, children starving to death and leg blown off by a bomb.
Warfare is derived from the whole population base, from the engineers and factory workers, scientists, officer corps, general staff, pilots and riflemen. There's no evidence that blacks are anywhere near as capable at warfare as whites and much to the contrary. Ye olde racist might be wrong 9/10 times but is right where it matters, regarding key civilizational abilities of which warfare is the most important. The leftist might be right 9/10 times about things that don't matter but still have a much more flawed understanding. Consider Detroit, school bussing, affirmative action and trillions in foreign aid to Africa...
YMMV on the relevance, but I'd say a twelve-year-old girl with knife/hatchet is still a deadly threat
Epistemic Status: I have zero experience with knife fighting and plentiful experience playfighting with children.
This is a thing where my brain just declines to recognize the danger. Even aside from the strength issue, most 12 year old girls are just not terribly coordinated. An athletic girl from say, the top 10%? Yeah, ok, she has solid odds of making it hurt. Less likely to be somewhere vital, because I'll have about a foot of reach, even discounting the length of the blade. But my mental model of a median 12 year old says I'd be more likely to accidentally hurt her trying to disarm her than to be seriously injured in the process.
But I fully admit that this might be a "I can totally wrestle a black bear" situation. I'd try to do the marker test with my own kid, but I'm honestly worried about going too hard and accidentally hurting her.
Maybe that's the issue. A 12 year old girl can feign vulnerability and get in close for knifework. IIRC, that was what the Japanese were telling their schoolgirls to do if the Americans invaded back in the day. Under real world conditions, I would probably try to be gentle, and maybe suffer sorely for the sake of chivalry. Because if bloodlusted, I feel confident that I would wreck any 12 year old girl in a fight, knife or no.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Of course, how on Earth does one retrieve weapons fast enough to return before the end of a scuffle between a 13 year old girl and two adults?
If she lives in a flat that faces that playground, it could be a matter of about a minute or two. I wasn't retrieving knives and axes, but I've done this sort of thing plenty of times as a kid.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
2d ago
You posted a wall of text that amounted to "Suck it, HBDers, your forbears were wrong in the past and consequently you're wrong now". You didn't indicate which quotes were load-bearing and which weren't, so it seems to me they're all fair game. Anyway, I can't find any of the quotes except in secondary sources written by their opponents much later.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2d ago
Even if you're not getting cut, you're still playing against them. I've heard kids on my son's all-white middle school basketball team make comments asking how they're supposed to deal with a "casual 6'3" dreadhead" that every team from certain towns seems to have. Or in football where there's always that one kid from the predominantly black down who looks like he's 4-5 grades ahead of everyone else. My son's class doesn't have a lot of size; he tends to get put wherever the disparity is worst. I've literally heard coaches tell him his position is "wherever their biggest kid is". When he was 9 years old, he came out of a playoff game in tears, because the black kid he was supposed to be handling was taller than the refs and just absolutely trucked him every play.
Maybe they just lie about ages for a few kids to cheat the system - I know for a fact that some of those towns train outside league rules. But that sort of thing absolutely drives kids towards lacrosse or hockey. (And funny note, my son just discovered a few weeks ago that the couple of enormous black kids in his 12-15 hockey league are only a year older than him. From the first game we saw them, two years ago, I assumed they were 15. Luckily they've been on his team often enough over the last few years for him to become friendly with them.)
But the Sailer sort of argument, as I've seen it, isn't that kids are being cut, but that Eastern Europe is putting up white guys in basketball at the NBA level because in that environment, they get to compete against age-appropriate athleticism all the way up, until things are evened out in late high school or college, so a lot fewer kids get discouraged and quit or go to other sports.
I can see it either way. On the one hand, my son has massively improved his hockey skills by comparing and sharpening himself against enormous (and talented) black kids. On the other hand, he occasionally brings up quitting football and basketball to focus on year-round travel lacrosse.
Here you imply what is the main issue I have with the western liberal's version of this, and why they are unable to apply it in a way that actually functions; an ingroup implies the existence of outgroups, or at least of people not in the ingroup. If extremely illiberal Muslims are supposed to be in our ingroup, who isn't? If people are denied a coherent definition of their ingroup, they cannot believe it will scratch their back, so they fall back on base individualism and all the civilisational gains that were achieved by nationalism slowly decay.
Honestly, I truly believe that the only thing that could potentially unite humanity in the way globalists dream of is the discovery of alien intelligence advanced enough to exclude from our ingroup. Because there is never an us without a them.
More options
Context Copy link