domain:felipec.substack.com
Jiro
29d ago
Spending a lot of recent time with higher class Africans, any benefit of the doubt that they are civilizationally capable faded.
I don't think this conclusion can be justified unless "they" is defined more narrowly than it would normally be defined in this context. I'd suggest that higher class Africans are selected for ability to retain power, which is not competency at ruling to benefit the people.
FarNearEverywhere
29d ago
If people can argue over games and Marvel movies, and it is legitimate demand to ask for Representation in fantasy TV shows so as to match up with the real world, then we can argue over religion. Nobody is tying you to a chair and forcing you to read these comments.
do_something
29d ago
I guess what I'm asking is: where the liberals at? Or alternatively, why has the proportion of racists increased dramatically since moving off Reddit?
I may kind of qualify?
While I appear on themotte: I have limited amount of time that I can spend on "someone is wrong on the internet".
And there is only so much that I will spend on arguing with handle abbreviated to SS about holocaust denial. It can be sort of interesting but only in low doses. (the same goes for other witchy topics)
Many other topics seems to be equally witchy in noninteresting way, where I have no competence or interest or are extremely USA-specific in a boring way.
And when something is on topic, it is often of so low quality that it is eyerolling.
Skibboleth
29d ago
where the liberals at? Or alternatively, why has the proportion of racists increased dramatically since moving off Reddit?
Lack of external pressure + Evaporative cooling + community sentiment
On Reddit, there was some degree of pressure on both the mods and the users to avoid the attention of the admins. Leaving Reddit meant that they were no longer bound by those restraints and the least motivated posters were left behind. That in turn drives more people away who don't want to spend all their time debating HBD, etc...
Community sentiment has an effect of its own. To quote someone from the post-mortem on the SSC sub:
Of course, it goes beyond the general sense of hostility that drives people off and into the problem of moderation. Even if they're not biased by nature, internet moderators are unpaid humans and they're going to tend to look at users generating a lot of reports and angry responses as troublemakers, even if the quality of their posting is well within acceptable parameters.
Jiro
29d ago
The contradiction is "towering over the rest of the world is great, as long as it's us doing it, but not when it's the hated Jews".
FarNearEverywhere
29d ago
Congratulations to your grandfather and have fun. The Miami Vice TV series is very of its time, it's extremely 80s/90s. But treat it as an extended MTV video and it's fun. Some good episodes, some crazy ones (the, uh, voodoo one? Yeah, Philip Michael Thomas is not a good enough actor to pull that off).
Set the fashion for a decade, though, in both men's styling and in music. Glen Frey song inspired an episode of the show where he went on to star in this episode.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
29d ago
Look, you weren't part of this conversation, but you felt a need to drop a shit in the middle of it why?
In a very short period of time, you've established that you're an antagonistic jerk who shits on conversations like it's your hobby.
You're getting a 3-day timeout for this. If you want to continue participating here, stop treating this place like somewhere you go to drunkpost and sneer.
2rafa
29d ago
Since you got temp banned I’d like to say that I very much enjoy a lot of your posts and strongly encourage you to limit this kind of thing. I’m an atheist too but it’s impolite to drive by with this kind of comment.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
29d ago
Well, why do you think so?
Would you have a reference of a discussion of these results? I really wouldn't know where to look for something like that.
Some stuff here; https://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/achievement-gaps/race/
For example the development in race relations which caused the end of segregation has been having an effect on the genetic structure of the 'black' population
I don't think this can account for the 1970s and 1980s improvement in black performance. By 1980 black inter-racial marriage rates were a whopping 5%, a figure which increased only quite slowly and gradually over the following years, not really compatible with the quickest convergence being during those years. There is the question you raise about changes in identification, but again I don't think that was occurring - not in most of the country anyway - to any significant extent during the fastest years of decline (during the years to which that data goes back).
It's possible that the way some of these institutions work is influencing the measurements of the outcomes
That doesn't seem too likely given the nature of the data. It's from the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, who administer their own nationwide tests to students, which are (obviously) the same for every race. Could there be some increased level of teaching to the tests etc. from teachers/schools in order to boost their numbers. Maybe? But again if this were so you'd surely expect the strongest effect of that to be now, when the schools are under pressure to improve equitable outcomes etc., not in the 1970s. And wouldn't we see that reflected across the board, not just in black students? If this was a case of schools/districts marking their own homework, no pun intended, then one might be more suspicious but I don't think it is.
Better access to more competent teachers ('white' ones)? Passive diffusion of so-called 'white' values from the 'white' pupils to the 'black' ones?
Well to be clear, if it were either of these that would validate the Brown decision, because it would prove that segregation was lowering the relative quality of the education received by black students.
General lowering of expectations as a consequence of the ruin of society brought about by the same forces that ended segregation?
What forces do you suppose these to have been? I would put the Cold War and WW2 pretty high on the list of things that ended segregation, not sure they brought about the ruin of society though.
sliders1234
29d ago
There are no lack of male sports athletes with hair that interferes with their ability to perform. How much would Troy Polamalu’s 40 time increase if he shaved himself bald? Probably a few hundredths. But it’s not a big enough factor to interfere with feeling comfortable in your look.
2rafa
29d ago
Best part was girls begrudgingly saying that they found me attractive despite me being shown ina bad light for calling someone a pajeet.
One of those sentences that gets weirder and arguably funnier the more you think about it.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
29d ago
Unfortunately the OP deleted his comment. But I think what you say is largely true. Especially about the course that almost every other forum takes- I've seen it on RPG and boardgame forums, on fan fiction forums, on writing and literary forums, even (to a lesser degree) on tech forums. Some of the places I hang out at which are ostensibly "apolitical" have threads explicitly about "How can we support Biden in the election?" You can imagine what would happen if someone started a thread about how to support Trump.
I am "left-aligned" but this place feels like one of the few places left on the Internet where I'm still a liberal. Anywhere else, if I express my actual (classically liberal, or as the choads on those forums would mockingly say, "cLASSiCly LIbErAl!!!") views, I am immediately tagged as a right-winger. This used to make me say "Wtf?" but now I just accept that I am politically homeless and will be the first up against the wall.
(But really, it just enrages me, when I can still muster such feelings, that believing in colorblind meritocracy, free speech, presumption of innocence, biological reality, "my rules, applied fairly," etc., is now coded as "right-wing.")
FarNearEverywhere
29d ago
I can't speak for demisexuals, but there is a definite cleavage (ummm... maybe not the best term to use in this context) between reality and fantasy. Fantasy/seeing hot movie stars/pin-ups/porn is "yeah, this gets my motor running". Reality is "I like her/him but would I sleep with them if I got the chance? No/I'd need to be friendly or emotionally attracted first".
Jerking off to porn involves nobody but yourself. A real human being in the same space is a different matter. Some guys and gals might be "If this person I just met five minutes ago invited me to Netflix and chill*, I'd be up for it immediately" but some might be "I need to get to know them first".
*Seemingly this is the new "come in for coffee", which is one of the things that amused/aggravated me about Elevatorgate. Back in "this is not America" small town Ireland of my teen years, hearing this on TV shows, I assumed this just meant "We've been on a date, I like you, I'm inviting you in for coffee so we can talk and get to know each other better". Then I was later informed that don't be silly, this is an invitation to have sex, nobody expects it to mean 'we'll just have coffee' if it's offered and if you accept, then you're consenting to have sex. Then later again, with Elevatorgate, I was told that the guy only meant 'come back to my room and have coffee', who would imagine that it was a euphemism for 'have sex with me'?
Argh. No wonder I'm glad to be asexual.
sliders1234
29d ago
I think it would also be fair to say that the US has moved to the right. Part of this was because of failures on the left but I also say Musks buying twitter was a big boost and COVID had a great deal of just be nice to the crazies thru the pandemic. It’s not just Motte going right. Maybe I’m in a bubble but I’m basically expecting as close to a landslide for Trump as possible for tribal America.
A second point for violent crime isn’t a real risks is it negates all of the costs society bares to mitigate violence in the US. We spend a lot of money on prisons. And a lot of money trying to boost black schools. Chicago’s economics would be a lot different without these costs. You also would not have had the ghettoization of the southside of Chicago. More urbanization does increase agglomeration effects. If America never had slavery I am fairly certain we would have universal health care. I don’t know if on net this would be a good thing because I think we would be less FU capitalist which probably hurts growth in other ways. Without black people American politics would be a lot more like Canada, but a super power.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
29d ago
You got banned for shitposting. Your constant complaints about "this is the sort of post that gets upvoted here" are bizarre in light of your own conversation style.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
29d ago
It is sad, but that's how most people vote, even here.
People also tend to upvote a nice, spicy polemic, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of it, because it's so deliciously heterodox, pisses off the right people, or tells off one's hated enemies.
2rafa
29d ago
I think they’ve spent decades trying to weight their viewership metrics with real data on who is actually watching TV. It’s probably flawed in some ways but I’m sure the issues you’ve thought about have been considered.
It’s kind of like how, say, young men are very unlikely to spend 20 minutes on a landline survey poll asking about political candidates, even though (despite low turnout) many millions of young men still vote. Polling orgs know this and correct extensively for it, not just by weighting the men they get but by adjusting for the kind of views young men who do answer the call might disproportionately have.
(But really, it just enrages me, when I can still muster such feelings, that believing in colorblind meritocracy, free speech, presumption of innocence, biological reality, "my rules, applied fairly," etc., is now coded as "right-wing.")
I'm probably throwing stones while in a glass house, but I can't help the feeling you've been tying your own rope here. Unless I'm conflating you with other left-leaning posters, I seem to remember years and years of assurances that everything is fine, and us other (some possibly now ex-) classical liberals were overreacting when we were warning about the wave of coming cultural changes.
Hijacking latest comment to repost the deleted comment from nowimjustcurious:
In my continuing profile of disagreements among the alt-right, I'd like to summarise two competing viewpoints on a important topic to the online right: the definition and feasibility of "ethnonationalism".
In Is Ethnonationalism Compatible with Genetic Interests in Practice?, Asier Abadora argues that ethnonationalism is largely a doomed project because it will never obtain enough popular support, that "white" people in the West, and particularly the US, are too culturally distinct to form a cohesive polity, and that ethnonationalism amounts to "cultural Marxism".
In contrast, Greg Johnson argues that ethnonationalism is both necessary and politically attainable. First, he takes issue with the Abadora's claim that ethnicity cannot be defined:
I don’t know how to define Irishness, Basqueness, or Norwegianness. I doubt that the natives do, either. But we all know more than we can say. I can’t define “blue,” but I know it when I see it. I can’t define “cabbage,” but I never confuse it with lettuce. The idea that you don’t know something, or that things don’t even exist, if you can’t define them is an old sophism. In this context, it is more often used by the Left. “What do you mean by ‘English’? Angles, Saxons, Jutes?” The nice thing about sovereignty is that peoples get to define themselves.
Next, Johnson spells out his criteria for his favoured brand of ethnonationalism, White Nationalism. This criteria is based on his belief that all "European" people have a right to their own sovereign ethnostates.
He first explains the nature of this "right":
First, your rights are not obligations. A right is simply an option that you can choose to exercise or not. The obligation pertains to others, who are obliged to get out of your way. The right to have a homeland is not, therefore, an obligation to have one. Some peoples may be content within multiethnic states. If they are, they are not obliged to change anything. However, if they aren’t happy — if they believe that independence is necessary for them to maintain their identity and way of life — then they have the right to exit and create their own homeland, and everybody else is obligated to get out of their way.
Second, Johnson argues that "the most natural locus of sovereignty is an ethnic group, which is defined by shared blood, history, language, and culture" because greater diversity means greater disorder and increased conflict. He provides an analogy: "Any traveler knows how stressful it is to be in a country where you do not speak the language. Imagine living like that all the time. That’s life in a multiethnic society."
Third, because the right to self-determination is a obviously true, and because other ethnic groups around the world pursue their ethnic interests all the time, whites/Europeans should be allowed to do the same.
Lastly, Johnson argues that white racial solidarity "needs to supervene upon more particular white ethnic nationalisms."
But why "white racial solidarity" rather than pursuing ethnic interests at the country level? Johnson rounds up his essay with this explanation:
Why speak of “white” nationalism at all? Why not speak only of more particular ethnic nationalisms? Because that leaves something out. First, all European peoples share a common racial descent, and with kinship comes responsibilities. White peoples should give preferences to one another over non-whites. Second, all European peoples face the same threats to our survival — low fertility, miscegenation, replacement migration — thus we should work together whenever possible to solve these problems. Third, one of the principal threats to white genetic interests is “civic” nationalism: the idea that non-whites can become members of white nations simply by being granted citizenship. But whiteness is a necessary condition of belonging to any European people. Not all white people are Irish, but all Irish people are white. Fourth, assimilation is a real thing, although it is rare and difficult and should only be allowed in small numbers. Race sets the outermost boundaries of assimilation. An Irishman can become an American, but a Nigerian simply can’t. Finally, we need to talk about “white” nationalism just because whites are being attacked as whites by our enemies, not as Germans or Swedes or Poles. Of course none of us are merely white. We all belong to particular ethnic groups. But over and above that, we are also white, and White Nationalism does justice to that.
There is more to essay, but this is probably enough for now.
HaroldWilson
29d ago
Aren't they on Reddit? For all the complaints about the bias of this place, they seem to have monopolized that site to an even greater extent.
Well maybe but that's sort of the point. If this is simply a right-wing reddit that doesn't say a great deal for it really.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
29d ago
Our overall traffic is down, but I think we lost high-quality users and shitposters in about the same proportion. So I don't agree the overall quality is down; we just have fewer posts overall. And this was pretty much inevitable as a result of moving from a very large platform to a very small one.
I was mildly against the move at the time (I think Zorba might have pulled the trigger too early.) That said, it's important to remember why we moved. It was inevitable that we would have been kicked off of reddit eventually, and probably sooner than later. Many of the conversations happening here simply would not be allowed on reddit today.
Hijacking latest comment to repost the deleted comment from nowimjustcurious:
Observation: TheMotte is considerably more rightwing than it was on Reddit.
A couple of three recent comments serve as a demonstration.
Several days ago, I wrote a post summarising an essay in a leading white nationalist magazine. Replies were relatively diverse, but the net upvotes tell the story of which way TheMotte leans ideologically. To wit, the most upvoted comments argue that "Americans" should not include non-white people, and that desegregation was a mistake, and that you shouldn't let black people watch your children (really?).
Likewise, in an attempt to play devil's advocate, I made a recent comment about the "suffering" of white people in response to the HBD post from @PresterJohnsHerald. It's currently sitting at 10 upvotes, and even more interestingly, there is only one reply! I anticipated there would be a lot of rebuttals, like the fact that crime is overwhelmingly interracial, that far more black and white people get along than hurt one another, that your chance of dying from a homicide is statistically negligible, and that the solution obviously can't be segregation. Conversely, replies suggesting that the history of slavery and Jim Crow might have something to do with black underperformance are sitting below zero votes.
I guess what I'm asking is: where the liberals at? Or alternatively, why has the proportion of racists increased dramatically since moving off Reddit?
oats_son
29d ago
You guys like coffee? I love coffee. I'm not so into it that I have a grinder or anything, but it's almost every day that I drink some at work. I drink it black.
The problem is that I might love it too much. I get a little paranoid that I'm consuming too much caffeine. And maybe I'd sleep better if I didn't overdo it. You guys got any favorite decaf brands? So far, I've tried a total of one decaf coffee, Beaumont from Aldi. It was noticeably less good than regular coffee, and I needed to put quite a bit more grounds in it to match my usual taste, but overall, not bad. I hope some of you can report that you've tried one that's better than "not bad", but who knows.
See Portland moving to re-criminalise drug possession. My oh my, who could ever have foreseen that only nice, respectable, non-criminal, non-junkie drug users who confined it to the weekend for recreational fun, didn't need to steal or rob to feed a habit, and were perfectly rational about their drug use would not be the only ones using drugs under the scheme of de-criminalisation? Who could have imagined that making it easier to have and use drugs would mean the types who shoot up in public, beg, steal, and act like feral dog packs would also be out and about taking advantage of this? Such a shocking surprise, why did nobody warn them about it? No, it's all the fault of those right-wing conservative Republicans this utopia never materialised!
More options
Context Copy link