In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

Old subthreads
VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21541

Post by VickyCaramel »

MarcusAu wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:50 pm
The Alt-Right (or more specifically race-realists) view of culture is that it is inseperable from race. So that an ethno-state is necessary for a culture (or traditions, or however you want to define it) to be preserved (let alone thrive).

They may have a point - when they commit to such ideas that others see as beyond the pale - it fosters a sense of comradery or community with others that have done the same thing.
Culture comes from tradition and history. Coloureds don't share that with us which is why the far left is busying itself trying to blackwash history to pretend that they do.

It may be different in America where there is a degree of shared history, but here in the UK the only shared culture is what the Imperial army brought home with them after a stint in the colonies.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21542

Post by VickyCaramel »

deLurch wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:19 pm
The skeptic camp needs to up its game. Kraut then this? The race based ethno argument should tank in under 60 seconds. I’m imagining Steve Novella vs Richard Spencer. Just to get some honour back. :popcorn: :lol: :lol:
The "skeptics" failure in the race based ethno arguments arena are the side affect of it being roundly a taboo subject. The topic is so hot that few people really look into the opposition's arguments, position and collections of information. Most people run in flailing at societally constructed strawmen instead of their real positions.

This is why many feminists fail so hard when put up against their opposition.

I would care more, but it is a taboo subject. And where you have taboo subjects, you are bound to have misinformation.
I haven't listened to the debate and probably won't, but maybe it's because it isn't taboo for me, I don't see it as too much of a problem.
Essentially you have to concede a lot of point to the race realists, either they are spot on correct, or there isn't evidence either way.
The question is then, "what are you going to do about it?".
It seems to me that much of the alt-Right are actually Nazis, and the rest are fascists who don't actually want to kill anybody but are quite happy to redraw the national borders followed by a spot of ethnic cleansing... other than that they want to rip up a thousand years of hard fought for rights and laws.
Basically their ideas are horrible on their face. They will never get any traction even if we ignore them as most people can see how insane this is, it can't be too difficult to make an argument as to why this is insane and that Western Liberal Democracy is worth fighting for?

Am I wrong?

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21543

Post by gurugeorge »

Old_ones wrote: No weird conflation between the way a person looks and the way that they think is needed.
That's a bit of a canard. Obviously the point is that the different genetics result in slightly different average _internal structures_ as well as different external signs like skin colour. On average: slightly different "builds" for brains, different preferences for reproductive strategies and family forms, different proclivities to violence or peacefulness, etc., etc.

Obviously ideas and principles have their own logic independent of who espouses them, just like maths is the same everywhere, facts are the same everywhere, etc. But the really tricky issue is whether some different races have tendencies to originate and prefer different types of ideas than others. If they do, then if it's also the case that Whites are likely to be submerged demographically, then we bloody well ought to worry about the survival of the White race, if we like all those nice, liberal ideas.

This is why a lot of Sargon's responses are beside the point. Obviously there are going to be outliers with all these things (e.g. Whites who don't have nuclear families, tribes here and there who do, people of all races who cherish ideas originated by Whites, and vice-versa). The question is: would a majority non-White population tend to naturally prefer, sustain and reproduce through time, all those nice liberal ideas we love?

The history of the attempts to implement democracy in other countries is one rather important data point that would seem to suggest no.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21544

Post by MacGruberKnows »

KiwiInOz wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:
MarcusAu wrote: What's so special about whiteness?
Maybe ask the Thais.

http://www.newsweek.cor m/penis-whitening-laser-procedure-goes-viral-thailand-770962
Anyone remember when Skekpchicks official mom - Elyse Anders - was begging for money on her facebook site while bragging about her latest anal bleaching and when some idiot said maybe put the anal-bleaching money towards food for her kids the Elyse SJW acolytes accosted the poor women for daring to say that - teh adultism, teh good-motherism - effing Nazi - and proceeded to donate money to Elyse for her next anal bleaching and whatever money was leftover she could use for her next blackout-drunk encounter with the poor idiot she would wake up next to the next morning afternoon and call 911 screaming rapeand buggery - shenanigans!!! shenanigans I tell you!! Good times, good times.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21545

Post by MacGruberKnows »

Elyse, for those who don't remember our favorite Pit girl:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b112/ ... Solved.jpg

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21546

Post by MacGruberKnows »

SJWism, not even once.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21547

Post by Brive1987 »

VickyCaramel wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:19 pm
The skeptic camp needs to up its game. Kraut then this? The race based ethno argument should tank in under 60 seconds. I’m imagining Steve Novella vs Richard Spencer. Just to get some honour back. :popcorn: :lol: :lol:
The "skeptics" failure in the race based ethno arguments arena are the side affect of it being roundly a taboo subject. The topic is so hot that few people really look into the opposition's arguments, position and collections of information. Most people run in flailing at societally constructed strawmen instead of their real positions.

This is why many feminists fail so hard when put up against their opposition.

I would care more, but it is a taboo subject. And where you have taboo subjects, you are bound to have misinformation.
I haven't listened to the debate and probably won't, but maybe it's because it isn't taboo for me, I don't see it as too much of a problem.
Essentially you have to concede a lot of point to the race realists, either they are spot on correct, or there isn't evidence either way.
The question is then, "what are you going to do about it?".
It seems to me that much of the alt-Right are actually Nazis, and the rest are fascists who don't actually want to kill anybody but are quite happy to redraw the national borders followed by a spot of ethnic cleansing... other than that they want to rip up a thousand years of hard fought for rights and laws.
Basically their ideas are horrible on their face. They will never get any traction even if we ignore them as most people can see how insane this is, it can't be too difficult to make an argument as to why this is insane and that Western Liberal Democracy is worth fighting for?

Am I wrong?
Yes. If your argument is to do nuffin and that “meh freedoms” is sacrosanct, even at the cost of the group.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21548

Post by Kirbmarc »

Brive1987 wrote: This is interesting take on the vacuum of liberalism. I understand the pitch here may not fly with the group. But who can argue with their contextualisation? Maybe replace “Christianity” with “Western” and “Secularists” with “liberals” to broaden the discussion.

What structures do we have to offer? Intersectional liberalism? The regressive left? Places like this where we push back against clear threats but only dare embrace Kirbs weak and ultimately meaningless one-sided civic nationalism?
The de-islamification of islam. Applying the same secular standards of criticism and privatization of religion to muslims. Force muslim parents to have their children attend to the same classes of other children and follow the exact same rules (as it's happening in Switzerland, where "muh islam" isn't an excuse to miss a swim class or not to shake a woman's hands or not to obey to a female teacher). Confront and counter the reactionary messages of muslims. Stop pandering to imams and "community leaders" who are muslim identity politics fans, like the UK left and many other leftist parties are doing. Treat people like Linda "Sharia fan" Sarsour like we treat Richard Spencer or David Duke. Stop the double standards that allow muslim reactionary ideas to go unchallenged because "they're oppressed POCs". Never give them the public spaces that one doesn't give to Christians. Encourage ex-muslim groups and liberal muslims instead of gushing over hijabs (which should be treated socially like the confederate flag).

In other words, defeat the Regressive Left and Make the Left Secular Again. Promote people like Harris, Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, etc., who are true secularists, over the mushy pap of colored-haired, problem-glasses wearing islam accomodationists who think that hijabs are a symbol of freedom.

To be fair I'm not sure this can be done everywhere. The Po-Mo left, which inspires the Regressives, is too strong in the Anglosphere and especially in the US and Canada, where it has colonized academia and in Canuckistan even the political leadership ("Faceman" Trudeau is as Regressive as they come, also he's a moron).

But at least in other countries we can stop the tide of idiocy by choosing to reject "American-style feminism" and other Yankee idiocies like Standpoint Theory or Critical Theory by playing to the idea that they're examples of American madness that do not need to be followed.

Anyway civic nationalism is as weak or strong depending on how much support it has, and it doesn't need to be one-sided. What really weakens it are double standards, special concessions and exemptions, "punching up vs. punching down", appeals to emotion, like "but they're poor and oppressed!" and other deviations from the consistent application of clear rules to all parties in the same way (One Law for All). The things that make liberal democracies weak are all facets of special pleading, mostly due to misguided attempts to enforce "reparations" for past torts which allegedly "forced" the "poor, oppressed people" to act like reactionaries.

The biggest weakness of modern liberalism is that it's an one-sided blame instead of being a learnt lesson from the mistakes of the past. Colonialism and slavery were terrible ideas, and so was the idea of racial superiority, and the consequences of those ideas were catastrophic, but the answer to them isn't to meaninglessly apologize over and over and weep over rituals of admission of guilt, but instead to learn how to counter tribalism or illiberal, reactionary ideas no matter when they come from.

No culture on earth is innocent and pure: slavery, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, tribalism, group superiority are part of the history of ALL cultures. Arab slavery was as devastating as American slavery, ethnic cleansing in Africa or Asia wasn't less socially accepted as in Europe, Indian or Chinese empires weren't less exploitative than European colonies, Japanese racial superiority had dire consequences which weren't less heinous than Nazism (and no, the Japanese didn't catch a "white disease", they did it all on their own). Hell, when given ships and weapons the Maori colonized the Moriori in a way that wasn't even remotely less bloody than the Evil White Supremacy, and both the Maori and the Moriori were Polinesians.

The biggest weakness of anti-racist/anti-exploitative/anti-colonial movements is to adopt the exact same Eurocentric schemes of the White Supremacists, only by inverting its polarity: instead of White being "The Superior Civilization" they're "The Most Evil Civilization".

THIS is the biggest obstacle to a rational left based on coherent principles and to the application of these coherent principles to all forms of tribal, reactionary thought, regardless of its origin. White People are still focusing only on White People, making it all about themselves, only all about their guilt instead of all about their pride. There are no lessons to be learned, no standard to be promoted, only weeping and empty virtue-signalling.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21549

Post by rayshul »

Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:25 pm
Civic nationalists out there may be interested in noting last years Cato report. Results indicated that in order to value that most basic of Western liberal values, free speech, one had to be in fact ...... Western. Amazing.

http://i.imgur.com/FrTCS2j.jpg
I like white people

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21550

Post by MarcusAu »

You've never met my family.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21551

Post by Brive1987 »

Kirb, that agenda sounds like it would come from a society comfortable in its own skin

:rimshot:

and confident about what it represents. One that presents a strong culture readily applicable to all participants. One prepared to draw and enforce boundaries of what is in and what’s out and knows why these boundaries exist and what they mean. One which doesn’t tolerate terminal whiteanting which is the inevitable outcome of liberal individualism run rampant. One prepared to forcibly reject the ethnic and political flags of a competitive system.

Ie one I haven’t seen for a while.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21552

Post by Ape+lust »

rayshul wrote: I like white people
I like this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXN6JHKfYsw

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21553

Post by Bhurzum »

rayshul wrote: I like white people
I fucking hate everyone but don't use paltry things like skin colour as an excuse to justify my hatred. I'm 100% user unfriendly - "fuck you" is my default setting.

Except for Scented Nectar.

Me likey Scented Nectar - very cool lady.

(Don't mind me, I'm hammered again)

https://media1.tenor.com/images/561bab7 ... id=5443267

Actually, that reminds me: Jaime Pressly for new 'pit-babe!

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/upl ... ot_1_0.jpg

Sweet. Zombie. Jesus!

I'd crawl over 500m of broken glass and dogshit just to fap over her shadow... :romance-hearteyes:

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21554

Post by Kirbmarc »

Brive1987 wrote: ............

Kirb,

Frau Goldilocks won’t send me a reference for her racial dot painting (or any braid-pics). But I unilaterally tracked it down to a pubmed article. So it must be accurate.

Can you (or someone else) rub their brain cells together as a favour and explain wtf it’s all about?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945611/

The pic is figure 3.
Steers has already replied (and his reply was very good, credit where credit is due).

I'd add in my two cents from what I can understand from the article (with quotes).
High-throughput genotyping data are useful for making inferences about human evolutionary history. However, the populations sampled to date are unevenly distributed, and some areas (e.g., South and Central Asia) have rarely been sampled in large-scale studies. To assess human genetic variation more evenly, we sampled 296 individuals from 13 worldwide populations that are not covered by previous studies. By combining these samples with a data set from our laboratory and the HapMap II samples, we assembled a final dataset of ~250,000 SNPs in 850 individuals from 40 populations. With more uniform sampling, the estimate of global genetic differentiation (FST) substantially decreases from ~16% with the HapMap II samples to ~11%. A panel of copy number variations typed in the same populations shows patterns of diversity similar to the SNP data, with highest diversity in African populations. This unique sample collection also permits new inferences about human evolutionary history. The comparison of haplotype variation among populations supports a single out-of-Africa migration event and suggests that the founding population of Eurasia may have been relatively large but isolated from Africans for a period of time. We also found a substantial affinity between populations from central Asia (Kyrgyzstani and Mongolian Buryat) and America, suggesting a central Asian contribution to New World founder populations.
SNPs, or single-nucleotide polymorphisms, are variations in a single nucleotide, the organic molecules that are, roughly speaking, the building blocks of the DNA (and RNA) in a specific position within the genome. The nucleotides are made up of sugar groups and phosphate groups, the backbone of DNA, and nitrogenous bases, whose order and position encodes the information stored in the DNA.

The are four bases in the DNA: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (A, C, G, T). A SNP is a variation between different DNAs in a single nucleotide, so in a single exchange of a base: for example let's imagine a DNA sequence which goes TAGACATAGACC, a SNP would be (in bold) TAGAAATAGACC (in this case a C/A polymorpism).

It's important to remember that SNPs do not necessary imply different genetic coding: SNPs can fall in both coding and not-coding sequences of genes, in sequences between genes, so they might or not might not change the amino acid sequence of the protein which the genes produce. Even within the coding sequence many SNPs are synonymous (they don't affect the protein sequence) and only a few either produce a different protein (missense SNPs, "true mutations"), or incomplete, non-functional proteins (nonsense SNPs).

A measure of hundreds of thousands of SNPs between different populations is rather good proxy for a measure of genetic diversity between those populations and so a rough "genetic history" of the populations themselves (by studying what varies and in which degree between them at a nucleotide level). The paper writes that the differences support the idea that the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, Polynesians and Native Americans all came from a single, pre-historic migration from Africa rather than a series of back and forth migrations between Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world.

This is fascinating, and a truly revolutionary way to look at genetic history, but contrary to what Frau Not Giving Braid-Pics tries to imply it doesn't even remotely mean that Sub-Saharan African are "a different hominid species", since the definition of species, while fuzzy, is about a rather different degree of genetic difference:
An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring.
I'm pretty sure that humans of different populations can mate with one another and produce fertile male and female offspring (unlike, for example, donkey and horses hybrids, like mules, where fertility of offspring is limited to female offspring).

Human genetic variation is known and accepted among all genetists and biologists. It's not surprising that populations that lived far from each other tend to differ more, and that populations that had common ancestors tend to differ less. Indeed it'd be surprising if it happened otherwise.

The greatest degree of diversity (as it is shown in the graph, once you have the context to interpret it) is between African populations and the rest (quote from the study which you linked to):
The majority of the genetic variation is found between African and non-African populations, as the first principal component (PC1) accounts for 78.7% of total variance. PC2 reflects genetic variation in Eurasia, and populations from Central and West Asia occupy the space between East Asia and Europe to form a relatively continuous distribution.
This likely means that the common ancestors between Sub-Saharan African and EuroAsianAmeroPolynesians lived before the common ancestors of modern Sub-Saharan African populations, or, for example, the common ancestors between Central/West Asians and Europe. So the theory of "one single big migration out of Africa" receives a lot of supporting genetic evidence. No surprises here.

Indeed it's more interesting to note that (for example) Native American populations have more in common with Central Asians than with Eastern Asians:
New World populations (Totonac and Bolivian) are placed between Nepalese and Kyrgyzstanis, indicating higher affinity of these American samples to central Asians than to eastern Asians.
(This likely suggests than the common ancestors of New World populations and central Asians lived after the common ancestors of New World populations and Eastern Asians, or in other terms that Native Americans are genetically closer to, say, Siberian ethnic groups than to the Japanese, which makes a lot of sense geographically and historically speaking).
In Europe, a northern/western European component is predominant in HapMap CEU, the Utah Northern European, and the Slovenian samples. One Caucasus/Middle East component is predominant in Daghestani and Iraqi samples and appears to decrease clinally to the east through Pakistan and Nepal and to the west through southern and northern Europe.
No surprises here, geographically close groups (historically speaking, pre-Industrial Age) are closer than geographically distant populations, and this happens gradually from Europe to Nepal).

It's interesting to read the conclusions of the study:
Consistent with previous studies [37; 39; 40], our analyses demonstrate that differentiation among human populations decreases substantially and genetic diversity is distributed in a more clinal pattern when more geographically intermediate populations are sampled. The reduction of FST values with further geographic sampling illustrates the limitations of a global FST estimate to capture the pattern of human genetic diversity. With a more comprehensive population samples, our data have also led to several new observations about human demographic history and genetic relationships among human populations.
Basically, the bigger and more geographically diverse the samples, the lower the overall genetic differences, which makes sense, since people which lived close tended to intermarry more than those who were separated by miles and miles of land. This happens in all animals so it's not surprising that it happens in humans. Sample fox populations in England and in Russia and you'll find more differences than in fox populations in France and in Germany.

It's also interesting to note that non-Sub-Saharan populations seem to have a (small) degree of Neandertal admixture than Sub-Saharan Africans lack:
Interestingly, a recent study of the Neandertal genome suggests that the non-African individuals, but not the Africans, contain similar amount of admixture (1–4%) with the Neandertals [47]. The authors suggest that the admixture must have happened between the Neandertals with an ancestral non-African population before the Eurasian expansion.
So if anything the ones who mated with a different species of hominids were the non-Africans, while Africans are the "pure Sapiens".

Another interesting conclusion is that Middle Eastern populations (for example Iraqi Kurds) might have more in common with Europeans than with with Asians (although, understandably, less so than European populations like Slovenians):
PC1 (accounting for 62.7% of the variance) reflects an east-west gradient, while PC2 (3.3% of the variance) reflects a north-south gradient. Slovenians and Iraqi Kurds show close relationships to European populations. A closer examination (Supp. Figure S4B) shows that Kurds and eastern European Daghestani populations (Urkarah and Stalskoe) are clearly separated from western European populations. On the other hand, Slovenians show very little differentiation from western European populations (Supp. Figure S4B).
(So there is A LOT of racial variation within the "Muslim world", with Kurds being closer to Europeans than,say, to Pakistanis. In an ideal world this would quash the idea that islam is "the religion of brown people", as if all muslims and all "brown people" are a hodgepodge of indistinguishable "others" to Europe).

Overall the study is pretty fascinating: it gives weight to the theory of a single migration of a population out of Africa which then differentiated from Sub-Saharan Africans in the Middle East, by genetic drift, selection and mating with Neandertals (to a limited degree), then expanded through Eurasia and later from Siberia to the Americas, while close populations keep in contact and kept exchanging genetic material (Kurds being closer to Europeans than to Indians makes a lot of sense considering the history and geography of the Middle East).

We live in very interesting times and genetic evidence for the evolutionary tree of humans makes it even more interesting. I don't see any evidence for a differentiation so big that it led to "different species" between Sub-Saharan Africans and "the rest".
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:25 pm
Civic nationalists out there may be interested in noting last years Cato report. Results indicated that in order to value that most basic of Western liberal values, free speech, one had to be in fact ...... Western. Amazing.

http://i.imgur.com/FrTCS2j.jpg
I think Old_Ones wrote it to you already, but it's not surprising that after years of being told that they're always victims and the Whites Are Evil and freedom of speech and other American institutions are only a tool of the AmeriKKKa minorities have come to believe this.

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21555

Post by Bhurzum »

The Sargon/Spencer "debate" is excruciating.

:x

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21556

Post by Brive1987 »

Bhurzum wrote: The Sargon/Spencer "debate" is excruciating.

:x
Isn’t it!! :dance:

The Emperors are very ugly in their new clothes.

Kirby and Steers thanks. Even if on first read I saw technical words but no entailed meaning. I will read it again outload this time.

For a funny there is this race realist debate.

Basically Dude1 says even if races exist they are put to evil use by people like like Tara McCarthy who wants to use violence to create an ethno state.

Dude2 says BS to the Tara claim

Dude1 plays a video of Tara which we can’t hear but is problematic.

They argue over what she meant. Tara comes onto chat from the blue and wants to defend herself. Dude1 says no she’s too dumb and Dude2 could make her argument better than she could. :lol:

Tara comes on anyway and Dude1 insults her when he lets her speak as she proves him right. :lol: :lol:

From the 36 min mark.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21557

Post by Brive1987 »

“Kirb” and “out loud”

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21558

Post by MacGruberKnows »

Kirbmarc wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: This is interesting take on the vacuum of liberalism. I understand the pitch here may not fly with the group. But who can argue with their contextualisation? Maybe replace “Christianity” with “Western” and “Secularists” with “liberals” to broaden the discussion.

What structures do we have to offer? Intersectional liberalism? The regressive left? Places like this where we push back against clear threats but only dare embrace Kirbs weak and ultimately meaningless one-sided civic nationalism?
The de-islamification of islam. Applying the same secular standards of criticism and privatization of religion to muslims. Force muslim parents to have their children attend to the same classes of other children and follow the exact same rules (as it's happening in Switzerland, where "muh islam" isn't an excuse to miss a swim class or not to shake a woman's hands or not to obey to a female teacher). Confront and counter the reactionary messages of muslims. Stop pandering to imams and "community leaders" who are muslim identity politics fans, like the UK left and many other leftist parties are doing. Treat people like Linda "Sharia fan" Sarsour like we treat Richard Spencer or David Duke. Stop the double standards that allow muslim reactionary ideas to go unchallenged because "they're oppressed POCs". Never give them the public spaces that one doesn't give to Christians. Encourage ex-muslim groups and liberal muslims instead of gushing over hijabs (which should be treated socially like the confederate flag).

In other words, defeat the Regressive Left and Make the Left Secular Again. Promote people like Harris, Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, etc., who are true secularists, over the mushy pap of colored-haired, problem-glasses wearing islam accomodationists who think that hijabs are a symbol of freedom.

To be fair I'm not sure this can be done everywhere. The Po-Mo left, which inspires the Regressives, is too strong in the Anglosphere and especially in the US and Canada, where it has colonized academia and in Canuckistan even the political leadership ("Faceman" Trudeau is as Regressive as they come, also he's a moron).

But at least in other countries we can stop the tide of idiocy by choosing to reject "American-style feminism" and other Yankee idiocies like Standpoint Theory or Critical Theory by playing to the idea that they're examples of American madness that do not need to be followed.

Anyway civic nationalism is as weak or strong depending on how much support it has, and it doesn't need to be one-sided. What really weakens it are double standards, special concessions and exemptions, "punching up vs. punching down", appeals to emotion, like "but they're poor and oppressed!" and other deviations from the consistent application of clear rules to all parties in the same way (One Law for All). The things that make liberal democracies weak are all facets of special pleading, mostly due to misguided attempts to enforce "reparations" for past torts which allegedly "forced" the "poor, oppressed people" to act like reactionaries.

The biggest weakness of modern liberalism is that it's an one-sided blame instead of being a learnt lesson from the mistakes of the past. Colonialism and slavery were terrible ideas, and so was the idea of racial superiority, and the consequences of those ideas were catastrophic, but the answer to them isn't to meaninglessly apologize over and over and weep over rituals of admission of guilt, but instead to learn how to counter tribalism or illiberal, reactionary ideas no matter when they come from.

No culture on earth is innocent and pure: slavery, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, tribalism, group superiority are part of the history of ALL cultures. Arab slavery was as devastating as American slavery, ethnic cleansing in Africa or Asia wasn't less socially accepted as in Europe, Indian or Chinese empires weren't less exploitative than European colonies, Japanese racial superiority had dire consequences which weren't less heinous than Nazism (and no, the Japanese didn't catch a "white disease", they did it all on their own). Hell, when given ships and weapons the Maori colonized the Moriori in a way that wasn't even remotely less bloody than the Evil White Supremacy, and both the Maori and the Moriori were Polinesians.

The biggest weakness of anti-racist/anti-exploitative/anti-colonial movements is to adopt the exact same Eurocentric schemes of the White Supremacists, only by inverting its polarity: instead of White being "The Superior Civilization" they're "The Most Evil Civilization".

THIS is the biggest obstacle to a rational left based on coherent principles and to the application of these coherent principles to all forms of tribal, reactionary thought, regardless of its origin. White People are still focusing only on White People, making it all about themselves, only all about their guilt instead of all about their pride. There are no lessons to be learned, no standard to be promoted, only weeping and empty virtue-signalling.
Everything to do with a society is ideological. Men invent their gods after themselves. The Islamists are essentially the Pakistani-Afghani pricks who are funded by Oil-Wealthy Arab pricks, for reasons. My friend lives in a complex essentially dominated by Indonesian Muslims. My friend is white. And
these Muslims love him. He is their go-to guy for remodelling and repairs to their units. Because he is an old-school trades white-guy. They know it means skill, knowledge, expertise, proper materials and a decent price. He was invited to a neighbors wedding of a daughter. He had a great time with great people. And then the fucking Paki-imam comes in and the fun stops on a dime. The fucking Islam version of the Mafia had arrived to read the riot act to Muslims who might actually be having a fun time. He ranted in Arabic and was clearly pissed off at the white guy - my freind - being there and also, that Muslims in this place were actually having fun. He finally left and the good times resumed. It's like 30's Chicago needing to get rid of the Chicago mobsters.

The hard-core fundamentalists of any ideology are the same. Just envious of the power that a Paki goat-fucking Imam has over his flock. They want that same power. Which is why Islamofascists, SJW-fascists and Christian-fascists (Baptist/Fundamentalists) are all the same to me. The brand of the rope does not matter to you when you are hanging from it.

Fuck them, fuck them all.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21559

Post by Kirbmarc »

Brive1987 wrote: Kirb, that agenda sounds like it would come from a society comfortable in its own skin

:rimshot:

and confident about what it represents. One that presents a strong culture readily applicable to all participants. One prepared to draw and enforce boundaries of what is in and what’s out and knows why these boundaries exist and what they mean. One which doesn’t tolerate terminal whiteanting which is the inevitable outcome of liberal individualism run rampant. One prepared to forcibly reject the ethnic and political flags of a competitive system.

Ie one I haven’t seen for a while.
I think that one of the ways this sort of thinking can come back is by de-emphasizing ethnicity and re-emphasizing shared rules and shared "classical liberal" values, along with a robust dose of focus on income and rights rather than on the "culture wars".

The biggest mistake of the Po-Mo left is to make race (and gender, by the way) central to its discourses. Take police brutality/overstepping of law enforcement boundaries for example. It's an issue that affects all people caught in an encounter with the police. Due to differences in income or geographical residence or levels of criminality it affects some social groups more often than others, and more often than their representation within the population. But so what? The objective should be the reduce ALL deaths due to law enforcement excesses, not just to make deaths proportional to the share of population (to make a non-racial example FAR more men are killed by law enforcement than women, in both justified and murky situations).

In theory you could make deaths caused by police overstepping of legal/acceptable law enforcement boundaries more proportional by INCREASING the number of deaths (telling police officers to shoot more white women, for example, to make them better represented as a number of police-caused deaths). However no one sane would support such an idea, since it wouldn't save any life but instead cause more deaths.

Also focusing only on racial issues within encounters between civilians and law enforcement officials opens the door to the usual objections ("Black on black crime", for example) and takes the focus away from the problem itself.

This isn't to say that you shouldn't talk about the racial component in police shootings, and/or highlight racial issues when there is evidence that some law enforcement officials are motivated by them (i.e. Joe Arpaio) but making the problems of overstepping of law enforcement boundaries ALL about race, and using extremist, shit-stirring rhetoric to boot ("Extermination of blacks in the streets! New Slavery! New Jim Crow!") causes all sorts of issues and does NOTHING to solve the problem at hand.

The same thing is true for other issues, like welfare traps or the growth of the working poor. You can say that those issues affect black more than whites, but if you make those issues ALL about race you lose focus and end up supporting ideas that look good for virtue-signalling but end up doing next to nothing in practice. For example defining "white privilege" as the fact that there are more white millionaires than black millionaires makes you support quotas in tech, but since poor white people in Alabama don't magically live better because of rich white people in the Silicon Valley, similarly hiring more black people at Google won't make the lives of Detroit blacks magically better.

The excessive focus on race, especially through the epistemologically and evidentially weak premises of Critical Race Theory, has awful consequences on the message of protection of civil rights or of reform of law enforcement or of the justice system to better protect individual rights or on of reform of healthcare/welfare/education/tax codes to make it so that people aren't trapped in poverty and can have access to a decent living.

It's even worse when it's all done on social media, where simplification is king and virtue-signalling reign supreme. Ten millions #BlackLivesMatter hashtags are cheap to produce and look great, but in practice don't do anything concrete but reinforce the idea that race matters and a lot (an idea shared by white supremacists, incidentally).

The PC police and other "cultural issues" are at best a waste of time, at worst a source of easy memes and soundbites for shit-stirrers like the alt-right or President Donnie "I don't do politeness" Trump. There's a deathly vicious circle at work here: the SocJus, with its insane inanities, feeds into the conspiracy theorist and shit-stirring mindset of the alt-right/Trump fans, which by saying moronic things on social media AND passing terrible laws (which are actually more about corporate welfare than race, but who's noticing) feed into the SocJus message that the US (and so "the west" in general) are Nazi Germany 2.0 and so all SocJus inanities are necessary steps in the fight for human rights.

Feeding into alt-right projects isn't the answer. The real power, the corporate conglomerates, use alt-righters like the use the SocJus: as a distraction from tax codes and subsidies which benefit THEM, or other perks that allow them to reduce competition and increase control of the market (from the repeal of Net Neutrality to Twitter Codes of Conduct, etc.). Many right-wingers are only motivated by "triggering liberals" and "defending out culture" (which basically only means "triggering liberals by saying Merry Christmas (nobody cares)or by arguing that gay marriage will cause doom and destruction"). Many left-wingers seem only motivated by "smashing whiteness" "smashing the Patriarchy", and other ways to "trigger conservatives".

What are lost are liberal democratic values AND serious issues like the growing share of people who can't access to a decent quality of life, or issues of how to integrate people who come from cultures which don't share those democratic values, or how to manage immigration so that it is beneficial and to reduce its issues in general, or how to reform welfare/healthcare/taxes/law enforcement etc. to deal with their issues, etc.

The "culture wars" are a strange game where the only winning move is not to play.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21560

Post by Kirbmarc »

MacGruberKnows wrote: Everything to do with a society is ideological. Men invent their gods after themselves. The Islamists are essentially the Pakistani-Afghani pricks who are funded by Oil-Wealthy Arab pricks, for reasons. My friend lives in a complex essentially dominated by Indonesian Muslims. My friend is white. And
these Muslims love him. He is their go-to guy for remodelling and repairs to their units. Because he is an old-school trades white-guy. They know it means skill, knowledge, expertise, proper materials and a decent price. He was invited to a neighbors wedding of a daughter. He had a great time with great people. And then the fucking Paki-imam comes in and the fun stops on a dime. The fucking Islam version of the Mafia had arrived to read the riot act to Muslims who might actually be having a fun time. He ranted in Arabic and was clearly pissed off at the white guy - my freind - being there and also, that Muslims in this place were actually having fun. He finally left and the good times resumed. It's like 30's Chicago needing to get rid of the Chicago mobsters.

The hard-core fundamentalists of any ideology are the same. Just envious of the power that a Paki goat-fucking Imam has over his flock. They want that same power. Which is why Islamofascists, SJW-fascists and Christian-fascists (Baptist/Fundamentalists) are all the same to me. The brand of the rope does not matter to you when you are hanging from it.

Fuck them, fuck them all.
I don't disagree in the slightest. That's why they should all be told to fuck off by people who want to defend society from their ropes.

Also, "Pakistani-Afghani pricks who are funded by Oil-Wealthy Arab pricks" is a good descriptions of Salafism/Wahabism, which is one of the sources of many troubles with islam.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21561

Post by MacGruberKnows »

The thing is, if you missed it, is that fundamentalists are all the same to me. Right or left. This religion or that religion or no religion at all. I hate them all. Black and white. No shades of anything. Fundamentalism is simpletonism. Moronism. Anybody who can boil human society down to a few simple rules is a monster. You do not try to explain the fundamental nature of humans down to anything. Because you can't. Humans and any human society is way too complex for that. All you can do is try to do what engineers do with an engine. Don't design the perfect engine because it does not exist and cannot exist. Just figure out the input parameters that give the closest approximation to the outputs you want. Free education is an input that gives great outputs in a technological society. Pragmatism, what works, not what bolster your fucking ideology. Pragmatism, it works bitches.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21562

Post by MacGruberKnows »

Kirbmarc wrote:

I don't disagree in the slightest. That's why they should all be told to fuck off by people who want to defend society from their ropes.

Also, "Pakistani-Afghani pricks who are funded by Oil-Wealthy Arab pricks" is a good descriptions of Salafism/Wahabism, which is one of the sources of many troubles with islam.
And this is why I love this place. Guys like you and a lot of others dominate this place. There is that consistency I want that imbues this site. Most people on this site hate the freedom-haters in a consistent manner. Freedom of expression is not perfect, but it is still gives the best results man has ever politically achieved. Or ever will achieve. In this day and age freedom of speech seems to be a flickering flame and it is that dieing of the light that I rage against.

I tried to explain to some idiots at FA that the best bulwark against the enemies of freedom are those same enemies of freedom. Does anyone need to rant against Westboro Baptists? Can anything anyone says be better than just letting the assoles show up with their asshole signs at a funeral and make complete assholes of themselves and their politics? The same thing for the Charlottesville tiki-torch idiots. Freedom of speech makes these idiots their own worst enemies.

Freedom of speech bitches, because it works.

Once you allow either side of left/right authoritarianism to determine what is freedom and what is not, those are the left/right nazi's you have let take your freedom away from you. You have allowed them to make you a passive bystander and allowed them to make themselves your policeman.

Fuck all of them into the ground.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21563

Post by Ape+lust »

Here we go again. Ashcroft II. Somebody tell Tommy Chong to watch his back.

https://imgur.com/Zm7uPNO.png

Every time we drift within range of sensible recreational drug policies, some Republican stiffneck fucks it up. We were nearly there almost 40 YEARS AGO, until Nancy and Edwin monkey-wrenched the country into drug warrior madness.

And more pathetically than ironically, the White House is still a place where you can get hammered on a first class assortment of alcoholic beverages.

I can't remember how many times I was assured Trump would be the most "liberal" Republican president ever...

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21564

Post by SM1957 »

White people are hypocrites.


They have longer, more stable marriages. They make sure their children value education. They have fewer children to single parents.

On average of course. There are exceptions....


But do they preach what they practice? Mostly they say one thing, and do another.

DrokkIt
.
.
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Brit-Cit

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21565

Post by DrokkIt »

Brive1987 wrote: Couple of typical tweets:








The skeptic camp needs to up its game. Kraut then this? The race based ethno argument should tank in under 60 seconds. I’m imagining Steve Novella vs Richard Spencer. Just to get some honour back. :popcorn: :lol: :lol:
Currently giving this shit-show a listen. Spencer is a pure identitarian who basically makes spiritual arguments for "whiteness" that are very similar to 'woke magical blackness' type nonsense.

Sargon gets drawn too easily and operates from a presumptive moral highground.

I think the reaction is pretty much people shouting about what they thought to begin with -the kind of thing where the exact same clips are going to be uploaded to youtube claiming different speakers "destroyed" each other.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21566

Post by MarcusAu »

Oh I don't think that is very likely...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYLogZ7X4I

Nevermind...

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21567

Post by feathers »

Kirbmarc wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:59 am
I think that both groups are, quite frankly, idiotic and counterproductive. Segregation only produces ghettoes and authoritarian rule of "community leaders". The problem with SocJus multiculturalism is that it wants people to co-exist in a way that is all about guilt, shame and enhancing some identities. The real way to integrate people of different ethnic origin is to STOP FOCUSING on ethnicity so much.
I was about to say something alike: both groups want segregation and not too much democracy. And obviously the white separatists wouldn't yield their oil winning and mining industry to the blacks if they had to torch the place to prevent it.

The world has become too small and mixed up, so segregation is a nonsensical proposal. Just get used to each other.

DrokkIt
.
.
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Brit-Cit

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21568

Post by DrokkIt »

MarcusAu wrote: Oh I don't think that is very likely...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYLogZ7X4I

Nevermind...
I'm further in now.

Overall I think Styx has done the best job. Spencer is arguing for a "white way of being" phenomenology, I can't get with this platonistic conception of reality at all.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21569

Post by Brive1987 »

MacGruberKnows wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:36 am
Kirbmarc wrote:

I don't disagree in the slightest. That's why they should all be told to fuck off by people who want to defend society from their ropes.

Also, "Pakistani-Afghani pricks who are funded by Oil-Wealthy Arab pricks" is a good descriptions of Salafism/Wahabism, which is one of the sources of many troubles with islam.
And this is why I love this place. Guys like you and a lot of others dominate this place. There is that consistency I want that imbues this site. Most people on this site hate the freedom-haters in a consistent manner. Freedom of expression is not perfect, but it is still gives the best results man has ever politically achieved. Or ever will achieve. In this day and age freedom of speech seems to be a flickering flame and it is that dieing of the light that I rage against.

I tried to explain to some idiots at FA that the best bulwark against the enemies of freedom are those same enemies of freedom. Does anyone need to rant against Westboro Baptists? Can anything anyone says be better than just letting the assoles show up with their asshole signs at a funeral and make complete assholes of themselves and their politics? The same thing for the Charlottesville tiki-torch idiots. Freedom of speech makes these idiots their own worst enemies.

Freedom of speech bitches, because it works.

Once you allow either side of left/right authoritarianism to determine what is freedom and what is not, those are the left/right nazi's you have let take your freedom away from you. You have allowed them to make you a passive bystander and allowed them to make themselves your policeman.

Fuck all of them into the ground.
Ironically enough I kinda like the diversity of thought rather than the collective. With the underpinning joy of knowing that we all hate PZ.

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21570

Post by feathers »

Tigzy wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:26 pm
Donkey's years ago, I went out on a date with this bird and it seemed to go okay. Nice dinner, a few good laughs and so on and so forth. No hanky-panky at all, cos it was a first date and decorum must prevail and all that.

When I spoke to her next, she expressed much disappointment that I hadn't grabbed her and snogged her. I muttered something about being a gentleman*, but couldn't help thinking that it is quite the ego to demand that someone risk at best a slap and at worse a sexual harassment charge simply for the tingles.
In these days, you could have argued that you'd have needed written former consent (one copy of which to be sent to the Ministry of Intimate Affairs and Feminism) which could be withdrawn at any moment, upon which your dick in her vagina suddenly becomes rape.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21571

Post by Brive1987 »

feathers wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:59 am
I think that both groups are, quite frankly, idiotic and counterproductive. Segregation only produces ghettoes and authoritarian rule of "community leaders". The problem with SocJus multiculturalism is that it wants people to co-exist in a way that is all about guilt, shame and enhancing some identities. The real way to integrate people of different ethnic origin is to STOP FOCUSING on ethnicity so much.
I was about to say something alike: both groups want segregation and not too much democracy. And obviously the white separatists wouldn't yield their oil winning and mining industry to the blacks if they had to torch the place to prevent it.

The world has become too small and mixed up, so segregation is a nonsensical proposal. Just get used to each other.
Hush in case Poland, Japan and sundry non white states hear you and start weeping for their future. Don’t tell Papua New Guinea that the Somalians are coming. They get kinda testy.

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21572

Post by shoutinghorse »

Count Dankula is in court today to hear his date and Lauren is doing her 'Kate Adie' bit.


MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21573

Post by MarcusAu »

I'm all for freedom of association - which I suppose means I have to be in favour of people having the freedom to create ethno-states, should they wish to do so.

Countries expelling large portions of their populations (or even dividing them up internally) - raises further problems though. Also, I don't think it's the government's business to know the results of it's citizen's '23 & Me' results (even it ultimately they do not use this information in any way - eg to categorize groups of citizens).

So Sargon is right in that a white ethno-state is mostly likely pie-in-the-sky stuff (the Ukraine notwithstanding) - but he has not stated the principles of his opposition.

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21574

Post by shoutinghorse »

*Fate not date :oops:

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21575

Post by MarcusAu »

Brive1987 wrote: Ironically enough I kinda like the diversity of thought rather than the collective. With the underpinning joy of knowing that we all hate PZ.
Ditto on this sentiment for me. I was just thinking of what a contrarian prick you are...but you know, in a good way.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21576

Post by Brive1987 »

I love you too.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21577

Post by Kirbmarc »

MarcusAu wrote: I'm all for freedom of association - which I suppose means I have to be in favour of people having the freedom to create ethno-states, should they wish to do so.

Countries expelling large portions of their populations (or even dividing them up internally) - raises further problems though. Also, I don't think it's the government's business to know the results of it's citizen's '23 & Me' results (even it ultimately they do not use this information in any way - eg to categorize groups of citizens).

So Sargon is right in that a white ethno-state is mostly likely pie-in-the-sky stuff (the Ukraine notwithstanding) - but he has not stated the principles of his opposition.


That's because, IMHO, Sargon has lost most of his principles by pandering to the Trump fans and other "light-identitarian" figures.

Once you admit that identity should inform politics, instead of being part of society outside politics, you open the floodgates to all sorts of identification thoughts, including Spencer's White Separatist nonsense.

Sargon has become a one-trick pony, ranting and raving about the SocJus while he gives Trump and the Tories a pass over everything.

There's no real alternative to the alt-right among the populist right, mostly because the populist right is an empty canvas, a confused mess of resentment, nostalgia and wanting to "trigger libtards". Also Trump is a shit-show which is dragging everything down with his failures.

Sargon once wanted to reform the left to make it less identitarian and authoritarian. He cooperated with people like Maajid Nawaz and Kyle Kulinski of the Justice Democrats.

He should have stuck to that instead of drifting to the right and leaving the left entirely to the SocJus.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21578

Post by SM1957 »

feathers wrote: The world has become too small and mixed up, so segregation is a nonsensical proposal. Just get used to each other.
I guess the idea of a city where only one religion is allowed to exist is just laughable in the 21st century.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21579

Post by Brive1987 »

feathers wrote: The world has become too small and mixed up, so segregation is a nonsensical proposal. Just get used to each other.


Yeah. I’ll take a rain check on that whole “part of life in a big diverse city” pitch.

Plan B is the black South African approach to dealing with minorities. Because calling it “genocide” is of course patently ridiculous.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21580

Post by Kirbmarc »

The only coherent defense of classical liberal principles is to say "identity shouldn't matter when it comes to rights, and neither should differences between groups", I.e. Justicar's position.

Human groups are never going to be exactly the same. Men are, on average, taller than women. And yet individual rights can be defended easily even when acknowledging those differences. There's no need to cut off the legs of men to make average height between genders equal, or to cut off the legs of tall women to make them "more feminine".

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21581

Post by VickyCaramel »

Brive1987 wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:19 pm
The skeptic camp needs to up its game. Kraut then this? The race based ethno argument should tank in under 60 seconds. I’m imagining Steve Novella vs Richard Spencer. Just to get some honour back. :popcorn: :lol: :lol:
The "skeptics" failure in the race based ethno arguments arena are the side affect of it being roundly a taboo subject. The topic is so hot that few people really look into the opposition's arguments, position and collections of information. Most people run in flailing at societally constructed strawmen instead of their real positions.

This is why many feminists fail so hard when put up against their opposition.

I would care more, but it is a taboo subject. And where you have taboo subjects, you are bound to have misinformation.
I haven't listened to the debate and probably won't, but maybe it's because it isn't taboo for me, I don't see it as too much of a problem.
Essentially you have to concede a lot of point to the race realists, either they are spot on correct, or there isn't evidence either way.
The question is then, "what are you going to do about it?".
It seems to me that much of the alt-Right are actually Nazis, and the rest are fascists who don't actually want to kill anybody but are quite happy to redraw the national borders followed by a spot of ethnic cleansing... other than that they want to rip up a thousand years of hard fought for rights and laws.
Basically their ideas are horrible on their face. They will never get any traction even if we ignore them as most people can see how insane this is, it can't be too difficult to make an argument as to why this is insane and that Western Liberal Democracy is worth fighting for?

Am I wrong?
Yes. If your argument is to do nuffin and that “meh freedoms” is sacrosanct, even at the cost of the group.
Well yes it is. I am hoping things will reach a tipping point, we can have a very violent but short war to protect "muh freedoms" and then get back to the way things were with stricter immigration control.
The problem isn't Western Liberal Democracy, it is something worth fighting for and that is how we will get an outcome. You are not going to be able to invent something better, and even if you could we couldn't get a consensus that would allow us to peacefully build an alternative system.

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21582

Post by feathers »

jet_lagg wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:19 pm
I do fantasize about colonies or limited social experiments though. Maybe give BLM their own town somewhere.
They could call it 'New Liberia' or so.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21583

Post by Brive1987 »

Can someone tell me what distinguishes one model “western liberal democracy” from another? Oh apart from nationalism defined by a unified people sharing common traditions and geospecific cultural values.

An ethnic national state is not inventing something new. It’s a re-set to normalcy. All this talk of vanilla homogeneous WLDNs sounds a bit monolithic.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21584

Post by Service Dog »

Skepchick-contributor Kaven Senpathy hatchets Jordan Peterson, for Slate...

https://i.imgur.com/b3adijW.jpg

Should transgenders-- the GMO strain of humanity-- really be calling Monsanto's kettle black?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... _chat.html

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21585

Post by VickyCaramel »

Brive1987 wrote: Can someone tell me what distinguishes one model “western liberal democracy” from another? Oh apart from nationalism defined by a unified people sharing common traditions and geospecific cultural values.

An ethnic national state is not inventing something new. It’s a re-set to normalcy. All this talk of vanilla homogeneous WLDNs sounds a bit monolithic.
I am real short of time, but it is worth remembering that in the UK we banned Catholics from holding any kind of power for a very long time in order to protect the political system we had negotiated with our Dutch King.
This saw us through a very grave threat which was an alternative ideology, little to do with race.

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21586

Post by jet_lagg »

Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:25 pm
Civic nationalists out there may be interested in noting last years Cato report. Results indicated that in order to value that most basic of Western liberal values, free speech, one had to be in fact ...... Western. Amazing.

http://i.imgur.com/FrTCS2j.jpg
This place is heavy in irony, but you've been going on for a while now and I'm starting to wonder. Are you saying you're fully on board with ethno-nationalism? As in you see that chart as causal rather than correlational? What the fuck does having "western" values have to do with genetics? If you're going to reach for the IQ argument I'd also like to know what you propose we do with the bottom quartile (closer to half, if we're going to take your chart as fully explanatory) of our population once the glorious 4th Reich is finally realized.

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21587

Post by jet_lagg »

Why yes. It would have killed me to read 2 more posts down to see my question basically answered...

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21588

Post by MarcusAu »

VickyCaramel wrote:
I am real short of time, but it is worth remembering that in the UK we banned Catholics from holding any kind of power for a very long time in order to protect the political system we had negotiated with our Dutch King.
This saw us through a very grave threat which was an alternative ideology, little to do with race.
This sort of thing is fascinating as history...but not so much if it was happening as current events...

https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co ... arch-1829/

The catholics were blamed for starting the great fire of London too...so they must have been up to something shady...

Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21589

Post by Old_ones »

Brive1987 wrote: Can someone tell me what distinguishes one model “western liberal democracy” from another? Oh apart from nationalism defined by a unified people sharing common traditions and geospecific cultural values.

An ethnic national state is not inventing something new. It’s a re-set to normalcy. All this talk of vanilla homogeneous WLDNs sounds a bit monolithic.
Normalcy on the long view would be for us to go back to relatively small homogeneous tribes. Nations of any kind are a relatively recent development, and have always involved some level of pluralism. You could say that the default setting for Canada is a "British Ethnostate" for instance, but Canada was contested by the French, and has a majority French speaking and French culture province. If you look at what the UK is, it gets even more complicated. Even now you have Welsh, Scottish, English and (northern) Irish national identities all bound up in the UK. If you go back further than that you have to account for the fact that England consolidated out of a bunch of warring tribes - The Britons, Engels, Saxons, Danes and Normans to name a few. Middle English is much closer to French than modern English because of the Norman invasion. Modern nations came together through the not always peaceful coalescence of tribes, so I think its fair to say that pluralism and clashes between cultures and ethnic groups are a normal part of building a Nation. You could argue that the Muslim invasion of Europe is new, but it's not really. Spain was invaded by the Moors for instance. If Europe doesn't want to be remade by its immigrants, though, it does need to knock it off with the white guilt and shame over colonialism. White culture is not inferior or "problematic" any more than any other culture, and imperialism is not uniquely European.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21590

Post by VickyCaramel »

MarcusAu wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:
I am real short of time, but it is worth remembering that in the UK we banned Catholics from holding any kind of power for a very long time in order to protect the political system we had negotiated with our Dutch King.
This saw us through a very grave threat which was an alternative ideology, little to do with race.
This sort of thing is fascinating as history...but not so much if it was happening as current events...

https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co ... arch-1829/

The catholics were blamed for starting the great fire of London too...so they must have been up to something shady...
I am sure it would still be fascinating if it happens in current events. History has a tendency to repeat itself, although I suspect we won't ever get to see our Prime Minister fight a duel which is a pity because people would pay money to see that.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if Catholics didn't start the Great Fire of London, we can always exonerate them in a few centuries when the threat has passed. The persecution of Catholics was generally a good thing. A very good thing!

And there is no doubt they were up to something shady. They were trying to take the Crown of England, to make parliament subservient to it, and to have the whole nation subservient to the Vatican. What is more, when Catholics did get power in European countries, they had a tendency towards pogroms and inquisitions.

...and Joe McCarthy did nothing wrong.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Those tyrants are just as likely to be traitors within our own ranks. If we act quickly, we don't need to spill any blood either. I am quite happy for communists and Islamists to have their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, we just make it clear that they aren't allowed any power and they will never get their way.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21591

Post by MarcusAu »

My Dad always said that Guy Fawkes was the last man to enter parliament with honourable intentions.

Shatterface
.
.
Posts: 5898
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21592

Post by Shatterface »

Just wanted to say thanks to Kirb for that 'two cents' summary of the paper on population genetics.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21593

Post by Old_ones »

Holy shit.



Part 2 is out, and the description of the courtroom is perplexing.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21594

Post by Kirbmarc »

SM1957 wrote:
feathers wrote: The world has become too small and mixed up, so segregation is a nonsensical proposal. Just get used to each other.
I guess the idea of a city where only one religion is allowed to exist is just laughable in the 21st century.
Not laughable, but a source of many problems. The reason why Islam causes so much trouble is that some muslim elites still believe that they can take over the world and remake it at their image rather than seek a secular compromise. And the reason why those elites still believe in that bullshit is that they've been coddled and protected from the negative consequences of their actions. The US have nurtured and defended Saudi Arabian elites, treating them as people who must never be upset, instead of letting them get their asses kicked in the wars they wanted to start to take over the Middle East. The same thing happens with Salafism, it cannot be even criticized for fear of "islamophobia". Time to tell the bearded cunts to either change and be prepared to be left on their own, with no support, and to be punished severely legally and socially if they still promote their authoritarian theocratic model.

This is a job that only the secular left can do, the same secular left which spends a lot of times exposing the idiocy, contradictions, hypocrisy and low actual moral standards of of the Christian fundamentalists, to the point that even in Alabama a guy like Roy Moore means a defeat for the GOP. A coherent secular left could easily rip the fundamentalist muslims to shreds IN THE WEST, if only it bothered to (secularists need much more time and effort in muslim-majority countries).

The problem is that the secularist left has abdicated its own ideals when it comes to islam. Liberal christians, quasi-christians, cultural christians and a vast assortment of non-religious, apathetic people and quasi-religious "others" have frequently band together to fight to fundamentalist christians, in the US like in the rest of the "west". The liberal-secular coalition has had many successes, from recognizing divorce in Catholic majority countries, to making abortion legal, to gay marriage. This shows that the secular-liberal alliance CAN introduce and defend modernity, despite the strength of the fundamentalist Religious Right.

Yet when it comes to islam a non-insignificant part of the secular-liberal left allies itself with the fundamentalist, conservative muslims, gushing over hijabs and turning them into "symbols of freedom", accepting idiotic ideas like "islam is the best religion for women" or "islam is the religion of peace", and a small but very vocal part of it even attacks critics of islam as "racists" and ex-muslims and liberal muslims, quasi-muslims and cultural muslims as "native informers", "porch monkeys" and "uncle Toms".

This is madness, and it's the reason why the term "Regressive Left" exists. I'm still convinced that the vast majority of leftists AREN'T on board with supporting islam when it comes to its anti-progressive ideas, they simply don't care enough about the issues of islam to take a firm position and are convinced that they're saving poor oppressed people of color from the evil right-wing racists (which EXIST, and aren't making things better but acting like little Steersmen). But since the Christian right hates islam then reflexively the progressive tribe must defend islam, even if many don't understand why.

In the US there are so few muslims that the left just doesn't see muslim regressivism as an issue, and numerically speaking I can understand why, the muslims in the US are as close to getting political clout, even locally, as the Amish or other "wacky" regressive religions. So I can understand why the American left is simply not interested in fighting regressive islam, even though allying with it is insane-

But in Europe muslims are much more numerous, especially in the UK and France, and while the French left is less keen on seeing an alliance with islam as a good thing the UK left has the most thoroughly fucked up approach to the question of secularism in islam, with people like Jezza Corbyn (quite frankly someone who doesn't look like the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with) sympathizing with Hamas or Hezbollah or attending MEND meetings, and in other countries like Sweden or even Germany (after the Sarrazin affair) criticizing islam is becoming associated with being an Evil Right-Wing Racist.

In part this is because of American leftist cultural memes which really don't translate well to Europe, like "white privilege" or "white nationalism" (Europe has always been about local, not white nationalism, just ask Polish nationalists what they think of Russia or Germany). Many young and hipster-ish European leftists are adopting Po-Mo schemes which are already not working in America and using them to analyse European contexts, parroting patently ridiculous ideas like "islam is the religion of brown people" (when a lot of European muslims are as white as Serbians or Croatians).

I guess we can thank American media and American academia for this :bjarte:

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21595

Post by Karmakin »

Kirbmarc wrote:
Sargon once wanted to reform the left to make it less identitarian and authoritarian. He cooperated with people like Maajid Nawaz and Kyle Kulinski of the Justice Democrats.

He should have stuck to that instead of drifting to the right and leaving the left entirely to the SocJus.
At least for me watching how a lot of this has played out, I think a lot of it is basically people thinking that the cause of making the left less identititarian and authoritarian is hopeless, and reacting accordingly. Just to make it clear, I don't think it is hopeless, and to be accurate, I suspect that when it happens it's probably going to happen in a flash. Like we're going to see one thing go viral, and that's it. One idea or concept that captures the public's imagination, or one movie or story or whatever.

But I see a lot of people moving in that direction, because they believe that the anti-authoritarian left cause is doomed, looking for a different way to fight back against the authoritarian left. I think that's the way it's tending to work.

Now, I could be wrong. Maybe it actually is hopeless. Maybe the whole anti-authoritarian left shtick is too fucking complicated to explain to the average person. But I suspect there's probably some easy entry point, some easy argument that could be made.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21596

Post by SM1957 »

Rapists are being freed from prison to free up space for Count Dankula who made a Nazi joke online.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21597

Post by deLurch »

MarcusAu wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:18 am
Oh I don't think that is very likely...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYLogZ7X4I
Nevermind...
Sargon is not particularly good at arguing in live situations. But at least he learns from his failures. Of course Sargon's poor performance makes the trouncing of Matt Smith at the Mythisicst conference even more embarrassing.

It is almost a fucking pattern. If you walk into an argument with the presumption that you have the self evident moral high ground, you are going to do a shitty job of arguing your own points and understanding your opponents arguments.

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21598

Post by shoutinghorse »

I've been out for the day and just caught up. So when are we kicking the coons out?

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21599

Post by deLurch »

shoutinghorse wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:10 am
I've been out for the day and just caught up. So when are we kicking the coons out?
Possums will be next. Where does it stop?

https://imgoat.com/uploads/d61ab14322/73440.jpg

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#21600

Post by deLurch »

So yes, I am making the slippery rope argument.

Locked