Oceans Yet to Burn
Month
American needs gun control, seriously. Omg, please stay safe if you’re in Cleveland!!!
Why is it obvious?
Gun control? Stay safe? How does one stay safe with no guns, hide?
@sharingan-rasengan-chidori Hi there. My name is Red and I was shot at in Cleveland with illegally obtained guns back nearly 10 years ago. There was no law then or now that would have prevented the thugs that unloaded several rounds at me into the cars I was near or into the brick wall behind me. The guys they had were illegally obtained.
Criminals don’t care about laws. The people that are shooting other people aren’t the ones that follow laws.
Gun control does not work.
If gun control works then how come the UK still has a death toll for death via gun
If guns make you safe then why does the USA have such a hilariously high crime rate
Because gun free zones are where most crime happens
fire engines are (((accidentally))) nearby wherever there’s fire
What?
I’m saying that rain is caused by all the wet roads.
The USA actually has a high crime rate even after you remove the gun crime, relative to europe/jp etc. Some other countries have less crime with similar amounts of guns.
Receiving @argumate posts like:
(The musical, of course, is based on the original script by Erika Moen.)
(Yeah that rent issue is almost a direct loss of value.) As for regulation, though, the simple axis of too much/not enough probably isn’t a good one. We would likely benefit from having the same amount of regulation, but better, or less regulation that’s more strongly and consistently enforced.
Well, I think there are ways to solve all of it, or most of it anyway, it’s just that most of the ways happen to involve stepping on a number of ideologies’ toes.
In a time when phrases like “Global savings glut“ are thrown around, I get confused as to why anyone thinks solutions like “The problem is that we don’t have enough available capital for investing“ make sense, apart from places that can engage in zero-sum competitions for investment. That doesn’t really seem like the limiting factor here.
Maybe there’s a reason that makes sense, but I’m not seeing it.
I do think there’s an If-Then there.
In that IF you fixed a bunch of your institutions to let you spend money in interesting ways, THEN you could spend a bunch of money doing useful things and not have said savings glut.
Because the skyline of every major city is filled with million-dollar holes that could be filled with half a million in materials.
And those holes aren’t filled for very bad reasons like zoning laws.
Ah, but my dear Poi, why are the zoning laws broken?
Because the only way to avoid crime and societal dysfunction under our current conditions is to price it out of the market! Also American cities suck at spending infrastructure money effectively, but that’s more widely acknowledged.
The political will for denser zoning will not exist until multiple other issues are rectified, including the creation of criminals, improper incentives that don’t sufficiently reward non-criminal relative to criminal activity, simultaneous over and under policing of areas, etc.
So I’ve been seeing this post go around our little sphere here, and….
look, everything in that post is correct, but the change is never going to happen.
the “Dork = Reactionary” narrative is a superweapon that SJ is never going to willingly surrender. it’s too goddamn useful.
not only does it allow them to righteously bash a helpless target (“THESE BARELY-FUNCTIONAL ASPIES ARE ALL SECRETLY NAZIS!!!”), but also allows them to use the threat of being tarred as a NEET to keep each other toeing the line.
It’s never going away.
Weird how “I prefer to date intelligent women” and “I prefer to date women with a high IQ” have totally different levels of social desirability.
The former conceals the fact that the latter may not apply to the woman reading it. That’s why one is Feminism but the other is Low-Status Male.
Today on tumblr I saw with my own eyes the word “h*m*sexual” written just like that, with asterisks in the place of the first two vowels. Amazing
Hemisexual? Hamusexual? Don’t keep us guessing!
Also was that person a woke politically correct activist blogperson or some kind of evangelical prude tradneet?
“Homusexual.” That’s why it’s so problematic that it had to be censored.
Rightists see threats where there are none.
Leftists don’t see threats where there are.
Rightist: accusing me of paranoia is undermining the security of our nation!
Leftist: I don’t see the problem with leftists remaining calm in the face of possible danger, better than giving in to fear.Centrists fail to see important threats while fixating on nonexistent threats, yay.
C'est moi?
I’m identifying as somewhat of a social centrist these days, whatever that means. I watched as rightists wastefully burnt through dragon hoards’ worth of social capital fighting The Gays, and for years I thought that meant Leftists/Liberals were more broadly correct and Conservatives were just prudes.
Then I started to see that atomic individualism isn’t what humans are ‘made’ for, and looked on in horror as I realized the only group that might stand in the way of legalizing polygamy (with all its problems) no longer has the social capital to effectively do so. Also that random casual sex isn’t what most people find healthy/fulfilling, and so on and so forth.
Which lead me to post the OP.
I’ll be honest here, part of the reason housing isn’t keeping up is zoning laws, and the secret reason for zoning laws being so dysfunctional…
…is to maintain safety/security, environment, and school quality by pricing the dysfunctional out of the local housing market.
How will people react to high levels of low-skilled immigration and accompanying levels of crime and other social dysfunction? They’ll react by pushing this stratification harder. It’s the only way for them to protect themselves, slow cultural diffusion, and maintain the social environment they need to raise their children.
To get open borders with an actually-reasonable level of housing construction, you’re going to have to go FULL SINGAPORE, become less democratic, more Capitalist (in some senses but not others), and brutally crush crime so that the zoning laws can be loosened.
But how many people who want open borders are okay with bringing back public corporal punishment?
Rightists see threats where there are none.
Leftists don’t see threats where there are.
People already weren’t taking Spencer seriously, and one of the non-WN Republicans I know thinks Milo essentially fell on his sword to make sure the Left kept saying it hates pedos. I think opinion on Milo may be higher than you think it is.
Additionally, none of these address the root causes of the increasing prominence of White Nationalism, which isn’t just “lol white people are racist”.
If your plan only works if no one ‘interferes’ by arguing on the internet that your efforts are observably counterproductive and unhelpful, then your plan is a colossal failure.
But, seriously, the ‘should you no-platform speakers at colleges’ debate isn’t the ‘punch Nazis’ debate and I think it’s really unhelpful to conflate them. Someone might believe that it’s right to pull fire alarms, scream at the top of your lungs, block cars, etc. in order to make sure that, say, trans-exclusionary feminists can’t give a talk at their college, while also believing that bludgeoning purported Nazis is a terrible idea. “Does suppressing speeches on college campuses and in other public arenas by having violent demonstrations against them work?” is the question I am discussing in that post, and as you correctly observe, “no, that fails to suppress the speech” is not an answer to a wide variety of unrelated questions.
When I write posts about whether punching Nazis is a good idea then you are welcome to spam me with hysterical anons claiming that I love Nazis, am personally a liberal fascist, am responsible for the rise of the Third Reich, etcetera etcetera, but when that’s also your response to ‘no-platforming fails because of the Streisand effect’ then someone might conclude that’s just your default response to literally any dissent, you know?
As always I am proudly and openly committing to interfering with street violence against unarmed people, organized brutality of every kind, and the spread of dishonest, misguided, and nonsensical information about how a society can fight violent extremism. Yes, I will interfere. Yes, I do interfere. Yes, I will persuade everyone that I possibly can to interfere alongside me.
Oh, geez, all this complaining about the Wall. Guys, Americans have wanted lower immigration for some time, but the leadership betrayed this desire repeatedly. The Wall isn’t some vanity project, it’s the reaction to this repeated behavior in a way that is easily measurable and cannot be easily sabotaged.
Yes, camera drones would have been cheaper and ecologically better, but y'all complainers already ruined that possibility since you’d dismantle the program the moment he left office and we all know it. Sanctuary cities mean you have no credibility to signal cooperation.
the way colonial societies resolved these mental tensions in the past was by telling themselves that the Indigenous population would naturally die out (while helping the “natural” process along a bit, if necessary) resulting in the new settlers inheriting the mantle of rightful occupiers and doing a better job of it.
there’s a steaming dose of Just World hypothesis in this, and a big chunk of the ersatz Darwinian chain of being idea, where god or nature had given various groups a shot at occupying particular areas and some of them just weren’t good enough and sadly but inevitably they would diminish like Tolkien’s elves and be replaced by hard-working Anglos or whatever and this was just The Plan.
a lot of the debate at the time was between the people who thought that the pesky natives should be done away with as soon as possible, and the gentle folk who thought that the pesky natives should be cared for and converted to christianity before their inevitable demise.
of course it didn’t turn out that way: we don’t know exactly how many Aboriginal people lived in Australia in 1788 when the British showed up, but it was probably not that far off the number living in Australia today, and the two populations have never been more estranged.
White people will die off and be replaced by more-deserving diverse populations… …wait a minute, why does that sound familiar…
The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous startups in Silicon Valley, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five startups?” // “If I find forty-five there,” God said, “I will not destroy it.”
…
The two venture capitalists arrived at Palo Alto in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. … They did go with him and entered his $0.9m one-bedroom home. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without gluten, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of Silicon Valley—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can pitch our startups to them.”
I don’t understand how the woke consensus came to be that explaining repressive norms or policies in terms of religion is taboo and explaining them in terms of culture is acceptable.
simple: blaming Islam would implicate American Muslims, blaming local culture would not.
It’s actually slightly surprising everyone was so willing to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon after 9/11 instead of the anti-Arab bandwagon, especially considering that was exactly what Osama bin Laden was attempting to do.
Well let’s be honest here, it wasn’t Arab Atheists that did 9/11.
shut up Anon and get the fuck out, I’m gonna fuck up your post now
Sword-swinging mercenaries who admire the hell out of their sister-in-law’s delicate, painstaking embroidery. Mages who find their experience with running a household helps them organize and control their magic. Desperate rebels who know they are absolutely dependent on the women who cook and mend and care for the wounded.
I am so bored of heroines who sneer at ‘womanly’ things and complain of the uselessness of embroidery. Your average medieval kingdom wouldn’t last a week without people doing women’s work.
I wonder, is this artifact where it’s devalued in part due to atomic individualism? Female-coded work is necessary for the maintenance of families and societies, especially in the agregate, but it lacks the star power of the highest-status masculine-coded work.
@argumate
…glutenous.
*hisssssssssss*
0/10. Didn’t your mother teach you not to pick low-hanging fruit?
I feel like probably the language they were speaking was Japanese, since why would you /not/ have them speaking Japanese?
I am clueless and do not speak Japanese.
From what I heard, people were speaking Japanese, but I couldn’t clearly hear the background people in the various scenes. However, I think the movie takes place in something like a Japanese Hong Kong or Japanese Singapore, probably following a world war which shuffled the national boundaries throughout Asia.
Note: “Ghost in the Shell 2017 takes place in Japanese Hong Kong” is speculation on my part. However, some of it was filmed in actual Hong Kong, so it’s not entirely off-base.
It just sounds like the most credible explanation for why “Japan” is suddenly so multiracial, multicultural, and English-speaking that an entire team from its internal security services consists primarily of non-Japanese people who speak English.
liberals in the 90s: Chechens deserve their geographic and political freedom and their unique ethnicity fully recognized
liberals during the Boston bombing: Chechens are white
liberals in 2017: Chechens are RussiansLiberals in 2020: We need to invade Chechnya.
Wait, wise old Chinese dude? Do you mean Beat Takeshi as Section Chief Aramaki? He’s a Japanese comedian and actor speaking Japanese.
I feel like probably the language they were speaking was Japanese, since why would you /not/ have them speaking Japanese?
I am clueless and do not speak Japanese.
From what I heard, people were speaking Japanese, but I couldn’t clearly hear the background people in the various scenes. However, I think the movie takes place in something like a Japanese Hong Kong or Japanese Singapore, probably following a world war which shuffled the national boundaries throughout Asia.
only if you actually have no real intention of turning at all.
One can’t defeat ethnonationalism by supporting it for minority groups and foreigners. That just makes one a rival ethnonationalist.
In such a case, ethnonationalism has already been accepted as valid, it’s just a matter of haggling over who is allowed to practice it.
Assassins can’t be held responsible for the random consequences of succession. If they had their way there wouldn’t be a succession.
Otherwise why not blame everyone for NOT assassinating someone like Hitler early when they had the chance?
The justification for assassination is almost always going to have to rest on Consequentialist grounds, since it’s literally killing someone without a trial for political reasons. There WILL be a succession, so you can’t credibly claim ignorance of the fact that there would be one, and it doesn’t matter if they assassin doesn’t want one unless they can stop that succession too.. The assassin has made a choice, and they went into it knowing that they wouldn’t know all the consequences.
This is killing a head of state, or former head of state. This isn’t like some small accident resulting in a gas leak explosion you could never have anticipated. It’s going to have big consequences.
Also, there were, in fact, multiple attempts to assassinate Hitler.
@ranma-official is in the right on this one.
I mean look, I like states. I think they’re better than whatever Anarchists will cook up. But states are fundamentally grounded in geopolitical realities based on the threat of force, in a world where multiple actors are willing to use force and you don’t know for sure whether they will. Your information is always imperfect, and if you fuck up, the end result could be global thermonuclear war.
It’s very difficult to walk out of that situation without any blood at all if you’re an ordinary human.
That doesn’t excuse Bush, but I think if you became the leader of a nation you’d take some course of action justifying the assassination of you based on your own criteria.
the idea that Trump/Brexit are purely a racism thing disregards the angst about globalisation that is taking place across the globe, not just in Anglo nations.
sure, people are racist, that’s unsurprising, but people are also exposed to economic dislocations without any sugar coating justification or vision of a hopeful future to come, it’s no surprise that they react with fear and anger.
@slartibartfastibast: Also all that rape. But pointing it out gets you sent to racial sensitivity training. So it must be racist.
@argumate: jesus like I said you can kick out all the brown folk and the problem will still be there, give it a rest
@slartibartfastibast: You’re out of your mind. There are potentially a million kids getting trafficked in the UK, specifically by familial Pakistani grooming gangs. Rotherham has a tiny immigrant community that does half the child rape. What the fuck has to happen to make you acknowledge reality?
Argumate man, he’s not going to give it a rest until they actually do something about it. And it isn’t “brown people,” generic. This is a cultural thing tied to a specific ethnic group.
And part of the reason he’s not going to give it a rest until they do something about it is that ignoring the problem in an attempt to preserve the dominant Liberal Globalist ideology is driving the adoption of right-wing philosophies in America and across Europe.
There’s still time to separate it out from race, but to do that, we have to attach it to culture, and give up on the idea that all cultures are equally valuable.
@andhishorse: Would the same people be the same amount of distressed if all the jobs were going to Western Europe, instead of various parts of Asia? If so, would the dissatisfaction with globalism be so easy to invoke, and its beneficiaries so easy to villainize?
China is a continent-spanning superstate only a few hundred thousand kilometers short of the size of America, and both of them are over nine million kilometers in size. It has three times as many people, and an authoritarian government that arose from a Communist revolution, known to engage in cyberespionage, which has more-or-less deliberately poked its straw into international finance and global capitalism in order to revitalize itself while not even fully liberalizing its economy, much less its government.
China’s government is a major rival to American global political dominance and liberal democracy on Earth.
Making Europe comparable would take a far more serious alternate history exercise than merely turning it into a fast-growing economic powerhouse.
The problem of “militant tactics just turn public opinion against you and galvanize the state” is really just a PR problem as far as I’m concerned. The problem isn’t the militant tactics themselves but the failure of propagandists to adequately explain and justify those tactics to the audience.
Hah, then you have decades of work to do before you fire a single bullet, m8.
Bad tactics aren’t always guaranteed to result in bad results long-term, it’s true, but…
People were warned, for years, that bad tactics would eventually cause bad results. Now we have the Orange Presidency, the antibiotic resistant bacteria that was foretold by those shouted down as themselves racist for advising some restraint. That was part of what made those tactics bad in the first place.
I’ve been feeling schadenfreude since November 9, 2016.
not really. like, most of the point of talking about how communities are wrecked is that there should be mechanisms other than price for getting communities that aren’t. rich people can already get functional communities.
My car’s brakes were acting a bit funny, so I took my car to the mechanic. When I came back later, I asked him what the problem was. He said that the brakes were getting old, so he removed them entirely. I asked him “What the fuck? I need those brakes to stop the car!“ He replied “Oh you poor ignorant fool. Don’t you know cars stop on their own? Haven’t you ever heard of friction?“
At that point I had a hunch what was going on. I asked him “You voted for Gary Johnson in the election didn’t you?“ “Darn right“ he said. Shoulda known.
There are no brakes on the ＴＲＵＭＰ ＴＲＡＩＮ.
the idea that Trump/Brexit are purely a racism thing disregards the angst about globalisation that is taking place across the globe, not just in Anglo nations.
sure, people are racist, that’s unsurprising, but people are also exposed to economic dislocations without any sugar coating justification or vision of a hopeful future to come, it’s no surprise that they react with fear and anger.
had a pretty uninteresting dream except there was a fusion restaurant called “Roof Korea”
How reactionary. #Rooftop Koreans
“Munoz repeatedly makes reference to established procedures: “Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this.” Here we have what seems to be a nice use of the active voice: We have actors (“our employees”) and they are doing something specific. But the figures responsible for establishing procedure are nowhere to be found. Whenever possible, bureaucratic style will shift responsibility to immutable rules and directives that appear spontaneously from the ether.”
it’s funny because if employees did violate established procedures then they could take the blame, but if established procedures are responsible then really you want to chase responsibility up the chain of command until it reaches the CEO if necessary: who established the procedure, who reviewed it, who approved it, who is responsible for reviewing it, who set the overall corporate direction that led to it, etc.
What if that guy is dead?
Then they are not the officer currently in charge, unless it was the incident under review that killed them.
What if they’ve died and become a godhead that communicates through prophetic hallucination?
My office has methods for dealing with that. You don’t hear about it much because this sort of situation has only come up twice in corporate malpractice.
I feel like this is a setup for a tired box jellyfish joke or something like that.
How can Labour supporters take a word out of Tony Blair’s mouth seriously?
Every time he appears the only question I have is “why the fuck aren’t you in front of The Hague or better yet a firing squad?”
a distributed divestment system that could be used to punish everyone who associates with warmongers would be neat.
That’s a pretty nauseatingly rationalist-ancap solution to imperialist war criminals. Just fucking shoot the bastards. What is the moral quandary there? Sic semper tyrannis.
Lots of people voted for, say, Bush. If you go out killing Bush and the others, it won’t be taken as “killing war criminals” because they don’t think Bush and the others are a war criminals. This will then be used to justify political violence by their side that they will consider retaliatory.
Or else they may start applying that calculus to other issues you don’t want them to. Some of us have seen the image of the aftermath of that truck attack in Sweden. They could start going after open borders advocates, more prominent Muslims, NGOs, and so on. Not that low-level individual violence doesn’t already occur, but it would increase.
Our time is already more fetishistic than the past. It wouldn’t be surprising for the future to be more fetishistic than the present, especially given a reduction in morphological restraints under either Transhumanism or heavy Virtual Reality.
Future-shocking readers that way, however, will actually shock them now, even though androids, ray guns, and starships operating on impossible physics don’t shock them at all.
the HuffPost deny white men the franchise thing appears to be a troll, but at this point I have no idea who is being trolled.
maybe all of us.
The people who don’t want Trump in 2020.
HoneyBites, the subject of the OP is literally denying people the right to vote based on their race and sex. If you don’t think that would increase resentment, and that resentment increase racism, for whites, but you think doing the same to blacks would increase resentment by blacks, then you don’t think whites are human.
You heard it here first, everyone. Be nice to the racists, and they won’t be racist anymore. Oh wait. This is the trillionth time this tired and wrong argument has been made. ¡Felicitaciones!
Actually, a black man did manage to demobilize like 30 members of the KKK by doing exactly that. But I’ll set that aside because while admirable that is a lot of fucking work and one doesn’t actually have to go that far.
What you have to realize is that racism isn’t uniform. There are some racists that will never quit being racist. This is implied by my “background level of racism” comment, and you should be smart enough to have realized that. There will always be a background level of racism because the background level is caused by old memes and misfiring human pattern-scanning. And Richard Spencer isn’t likely to just quit being racist even if he was argued with for a decade about it.
However, your comment implies that racism is a binary, that you’re either racist or you’re not, but instead it’s more of a continuum one can move along. There are people that can be shifted, marginal racists, the swing voters of racism. They aren’t Spencer, they lack a dogmatic commitment to racism, it isn’t part of their identity. Now the best thing would be to shift them less racist and actively drain the WN movement to its minimum possible size sustainable by background racism levels. The next best thing is to avoid shifting them further into racism, with the WN at least not growing. The second worst plan is to propose highly racist or racialist policies like “disenfranchise all white men” which will make people very, very aware of their whiteness and maleness and brand everyone else as their outgroup. The worst plan, which would result in the formation of a white ethnostate, would be to actually attempt this.
Richard Spencer needs to sell his plan to the swing racists. That’s harder to do the less true claims of white disenfranchisement and similar things are. It’s easier to do the more true such claims are.
So take this not so much as “be nice to racists”, but “be nice to people who are vulnerable to being swayed towards racism”. Had this advice been taken and something been done about US rurals as the rural white death rate climbed, Trump might have been avoided, since the white death rate by county forms a line correlating with % Trump vote. It wouldn’t have even been ideologically inconsistent to do something since many of them are working class.
If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.
At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.
Inverse the races in this and you’ll be on stormfront.
The sooner the legacy media starts proudly and openly showing their anti-white convictions, the quicker and harder the backlash will be.
“#Anti-white racism”
😂
*People of color and women are denied the right to vote for literally hundreds of years in the United States alone.*
White supremacists: *celebrate* *actively try to return to this today* *pass voter ID laws that marginalize people of color* *close offices in majority Black areas where voter ID can be obtained* *have fewer voting booths in majority POC neighborhoods* *throw people off the voter rolls if they have a name that doesn’t sound white* *strip the Voting Rights Act*
Someone: The denial of the vote to white men for 20 years would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology around the world.
White supremacists: That’s racist! Can you imagine for a moment if this were the other way around?! What outrage there would be in this totally hypothetical situation that has never happened in real life! Hashtag anti-white racism!
Is this REALLY the hill you want to die on?
Yes. I’m making my way up Mount Calling Out the Hypocrisy of Racist Ideology right now. I will set up base camp here and continue in the morn’.
Stop and think about this for a moment. Right now White Supremacists are still only a small part of the population. They’re growing because throwing your borders open has consequences that can’t be ignored, but they are still small and are likely to stay relatively small for the forseeable future.
…unless, of course, you do something like this. There is a background level of racism much like there is a background level of radiation. Insomuch as it is true that the Left isn’t racist, this truth can be used to keep the racism level closer to the background level.
Insomuch as it is true that the Left is racist, that it is willing to engage in ethnonationalism or disenfranchisement, while actively seeking to replace demographics, while covering it with excuses about how this is “antiracist”, the Richard Spencers of the world will be able to point at this and up their recruitment, then fill them with false information because they no longer trust the intolerant tolerants.
I cannot imagine a faster path towards an outright race war and the formation of white ethnostates than the mass disenfranchisement of all white men, one of the more heavily-armed demographics in the world.
Right now the Left is “joking” about white disenfranchisement to “make a point”. This contributes to radicalization in an environment already prone to it since the WNs can sell their narrative of “they hate you, so you can’t trust them”. And the kinds of people engaging in this “ironic racism” are like those engaging in “ironic misandry” - they just don’t have the credibility to seem as if their “joke” isn’t meant, and they would not accept “ironic misogyny” in turn.
Right now most whites don’t actually think they’re doing ethnonationalism. They’re reacting to Rotherham, they’re reacting to truck attacks, and so on. If they openly regain racial consciousness the results could be a disaster. So campaign to punish police for racist behavior because that’s correlated with truth, but for the love of America do not publish articles like this.
Edit: And as to “yeah but what about” - as a Nationalist I think slavery was the single greatest mistake the country ever made, Jim Crow laws were terrible, etc. I was faceplaming at that redistricting in NC that was so racist it went to court - and lost. I supported cop cams too, for a reason. But none of that makes this even a remotely good idea.
The problem with intolerance of intolerance in the case of Richard Spencer is that he’s just a symptom. Most of this increase in white nationalism is a symptom. The virus has been integrated with the host DNA, but the immune system would keep it almost unnoticeable under normal conditions. But the immune system has been compromised and so has the health of the host.
You can’t praise ethnonationalism for some groups without removing the antibodies against it for all groups - people will notice your hypocrisy. You can’t treat all religions and cultures as the same. This causes unignorable Rotherhams which will slip past your media net. And deciding assimilation is evil precommits you to defending the worst cultures that can make it to your shores.
Yes.
The world is becoming ever more tractable to power and it’s hard to see that trend reversing. It’s possible that some unanticipated technological development – unbreakable encryption or something – will turn everything on its head, but I don’t think we have a shot at reversing current trends short of getting lucky like that.
I have no idea how much worse the world will actually be in this future though. Probably our current world isn’t as good as we might like to think, relative to some ideal, and probably our future won’t be as dire as some fear.
Actually a fair critique in some ways; the early years of concrete/glass/steel construction were not pretty.
I’m still puzzled by those on the Left who don’t understand the rise in White Nationalism.
What exactly did they expect when they were cheering on “demographic destiny”? When their ideology required them to excuse terror attacks and look away from mass sex crimes? When the rurals were thrown under the bus in favor of corporations and globalization? When governing in the national interests went from an unspoken assumption to ‘chauvinism’? When the woman accompanying Charles Murray went to the hospital after the no-platforming to check on her injuries? When a foreign ideology hostile to LGBTs was excused from all criticism because of the race of who practiced it?
Will it be any mystery if Asians leave the coalition over getting smacked by Affirmative Action? Will it be any mystery if Blacks leave the coalition because tighter immigration restrictions make it easier for them to get jobs, and school vouchers make it possible to send their children to schools with problem students filtered out? Will it be any mystery if those who immigrated legally leave the coalition because it undermines what they managed to do? If centrists leave because of the support for open borders?
There is one movement that will never make white men its enemy and will never attempt to replace them. And they’re flowing towards it and its potential for ultraviolence, while it’s being cheered on by people who should know better.
The potential for damage, including to people who had no part in this, is catastrophic. How can they be demobilized by people that have nothing to offer them? Who are themselves hypocritical sexists and racists? Who excuse the same actions they condemn them for?
I liked pretending the cracks in Liberalism didn’t exist, but, collectively, that might have allowed the situation to get this far.