Oceans Yet to Burn
Month
Football Man can kneel if he wants. You, on the other hand, BuzzPo, are banned from Football House for this take.
(Did I write that correctly? I’m not very familiar with American Football.)
“but it is unrealistic for a male and a female to just be friends! for if they spent time together alone, surely the female would simply consume the male to gain strength to protect her young, and- what, why do your eyebrows ascend”
NEVER DATE ALIENS
That’s basically just secret police
of a totally ordinary sort
that then indulge in kickbacks and protection rackets
Yeah, I realized I forgot to tag that #half shtpost, as I wasn’t being entirely serious. It’s a bit of wishful thinking.
The thing is, I don’t think we adequately police the police. We need cop cops. Metacops, if you will.
The disutility of a crime can be modeled as the risk of getting caught times the penalty for getting caught. Thus, a crime with a 5% chance of getting caught, times a 20 year sentence as penalty, is then modeled with an effective disutility of a one year sentence.
However, people tend to time discount and so on, so you might not get much more out of a 40 sentence than you would out of a 20 year sentence. They’re both “a long time.” This means that you can get more oomph out of increasing the capture & conviction rate.
Regular people, despite not being police, commit crimes for some reason. Cops, who we send to increase the chances of catching them, also commit crimes. However, since they’re the ones that we typically send to stop crimes, it’s harder to deal with this, especially when prosecutors have to work with the same police to prosecute normal cases, and thus can’t afford to anger the larger police force.
So we should have a dedicated force to investigate, police, and prosecute police misconduct. “Sting operations all the way down,” so to speak. Of course, we’ll need to have someone keep an eye on them, too.
…but won’t that result in endless layers of bureaucracy?
Not necessarily.
Just as we only need some limited factor number of police for a given population size, we only need some limited number of metan-cops to police the cops.
We can model the required number of layers of metan-cops as logcop_ratio(num_cops). With a cop_ratio of 2, for instance, our total number of all metan-cops is roughly the same as our total number of non-meta cops. A more reasonable cop_ratio of 10-20 gets us a more affordable ~5-11% for a city with 10,000 cops.
The purpose of each layer is to increase the uncertainty of successfully getting away with a crime at the layer below through arrest and conviction through multiple means, including informants, patrols, sting operations, reports of suspicious activity, investigations, etc.
This would be in addition to other means, such as introducing randomness to make various forms of corruption more difficult, moving people around to prevent building up loyalty between layers, etc. We want any corrupt personnel to always have to act very carefully and in the face of a great deal of uncertainty, as anyone they are interacting with could be one of our meta-cops.
We’d have to trim some of the other laws before we enact this, though, or else be careful just what policies we’re enforcing. Some laws currently not being enforced should just not exist, and we don’t actually want them enforced.
mafia protection rackets are so infuriating, probably because all the incentives are to just pay up, which is how they work.
it’s so tempting to try and imagine impractical ways of breaking the system.
It always impresses me how these gangs can be “more powerful than the police” and operate with relative impunity even in first-world countries.
I mean, you’d think the way to beat them would be to tell the cops. And yet, the government, for all its power, is often not the biggest force, and not just in an “I can shoot you and they can get me afterwards but not stop me” sense.
And of course, the “people fled the country rather than testify” thing seems… Like something you have to have an answer to.
infuriating! I think it’s easier to stop drug smuggling than protection rackets, as that involves a physical object that has to be shipped around distributed and can be intercepted at various points in the process.
but protection rackets are just this diffuse cloud of seemingly unrelated activities; people talking to each other over here, money changing hands over there, the occasional shop burning down or dude getting whacked somewhere else.
since police can’t offer 24 hour protection for every single person in town, there is always going to be someone vulnerable to extortion, and the incentive is always going to be to pay a small fee rather than risk defying them.
maddening!
Secret police, but instead of enforcing ideological conformity to the Party, they attempt to catch politicians with kickbacks, investigate labor and environmental regulation violations, and crash protection rackets.
2061: after president zuckerberg hands over the location and biometric info of faithbook users suspected of having illegal opinions, the union of european (purely geographical term) council republics dispatches the third tank division “jean claude-juncker” and the open society commissariate to prevent countless islamophobic incidents. bereaved family members weigh the loss of their radicalized right-wing high school children against the fact they don’t have to exchange currencies at the breadlines in neighboring EU republics and come to some closure.
Exterminating millions of people might spike the crime rate a little. You know, murder being kind of a crime and all …
Alright, again setting aside that this is trolly bullshit,
All states use the implicit threat of violence.
All states. Also all Anarchists, so as to prevent the formation of new states.
That includes liberal states! It includes Democracies!
Anyhow.
If you decide to actually massacre millions in the name of “white protection,” the Liberals get to kill you.
What you’ve just said implies a great confusion about the availability and power of political will.
Extermination takes more political power than separatism. If you have enough power to attempt extermination, then you have enough power to do separatism without it getting watered down. If you have half the power required to enact extermination, you have enough power to do separatism without it getting watered down.
And if the idea that some people might change their minds and later invite others back in applies to separatism, then it also applies to extermination, assuming you don’t literally control all habitable areas of the world in order to attempt extermination completely.
It’s also about political power required per unit area, per political operative, number of political operatives, et cetera.
Making a white city-state requires the coordinated action of the population of a city-state. So let’s call it somewhere between 1-7 million. They all have to move into, and control, only a city-state’s worth of geographic area. Most of them don’t have to be Party Militia members, so your real hardcore force would only need 50,000-500,000. to attempt this.
The entire process can be legitimized through the use of democratic means and ideology of national self-determination. The desired area can attempt to secede through a vote, severely undermining the ability of democratic nations to respond.
On the other hand, a plot for extermination requires seizing control of the whole country, and maintaining that control. For a country like Britain, with a population of 65 million, it’s going to need support from at least, let’s say, 25% of the population. So around 15 million. And that probably isn’t anywhere near enough unless you also have near-total control of the army.
One of these might actually be possible in the 21st century without the context of an invasion by a foreign power, the global collapse of oil reserves, the government of the United States of America declaring bankruptcy, and so on. I’ll give you a hint - it’s not the one involving the mass murder of people who have, individually, not committed any crimes worse than a parking infraction.
And that’s disregarding the effect that CRISPR and similar technologies are going to have on race.
But of course, this assumes White Nationalists who are not too delusional and who are capable of pulling off something reasonably well-organized with a realistic and achievable goal. The kind of people that could somehow make White Singapore.
Which don’t really exist in numbers right now.
I’m hoping that Leftists will be restrained enough to prevent them from coming into existence.
Besides, you’re forgetting a key part of why the Left has been able to advance, socially. A price paid in blood is a price paid in your nation’s will to survive.
So again, taking this as serious for a moment…
Ethnic separatism isn’t a gentle “no thanks,” it’s the formation of a new, sovereign nation-state based on principles of ethnonationalism and ethnic exclusion.
Exclusion backed by the iron hand of a state, and its implicit threat of violence.
But this isn’t extermination, and it doesn’t require the will for extermination - which isn’t going to exist at the national level barring some pretty shocking unforeseen circumstances.
So assuming you actually believed this, it would be foolish to pick extermination over separatism.
I understand this ask is satirical, with the goal of mimicking hard-right ideology. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what the point even is, since for Libfas, it was probably an attempt to bait him into saying something that would “reveal” his “inner Nazi” or something along those lines.
But not everyone with concerns about immigration truly has a secret inner Nazi with an opinion like your satirical one. Leftists are just not that great at understanding right-wing motivations, statistically, from what I’ve read.
But let’s assume we take it seriously for one moment. Just, you know, hypothetically.
Is there any way in which extermination is preferable to separatism?
Because not only does extermination require political will, it requires somewhere between one to three orders of magnitude more political will than separatism, control over the state apparatus, and conditions that, in the West, would only exist in a time of lawless violence and disorder on levels of Weimar Germany (which we aren’t at - note the insufficient challenge to the state’s military power).
And then, once extermination is attempted, because for such a nation to exist (at our technology level) for whites, it must exist in areas that are currently majority white, the full force of the political will of the liberal countries will crash against it, likely resulting in a much larger and better-armed invasion.
Separatism, however, won’t necessarily generate an invasion, and may have trouble rousing even a sufficiently crushing response in economic sanctions.
It would muster almost no response in sanctions if your ethnic separatist population was any color other than white. However, supposing you really did believe this, that becomes a method to corrode your opposition’s political will - just repeatedly pointing out their hypocrisy on this matter.
So even if one were an extremely racist hardcore reactionary, it just doesn’t make much sense to choose extermination instead.
That doesn’t exclude people from holding such ideas, or even acting on them - after all, destroying the Twin Towers was never going to make America quit meddling in the Middle East.
Sssh, I’m trying to get through to a lolpunchanazi, on something more important, and that means setting some things aside for later. One thing at a time.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:
“Kent, a former neo-Nazi, credits an African-American parole officer named Tiffany Whittier with helping him to see beyond skin color and changing his views about white supremacy.
“If it wasn’t for her I would have seeped back into it,” said Kent. “I look at her as family.”
Whittier, 45, even inspired Kent, 38, to take down the Nazi flags he had hanging in his living room and replace them with smiley faces.
“I’m not here to judge him. That’s not my job to judge. My job is to be that positive person in someone’s life,” Whittier said.
Added Kent, “When you wake up and see a smiley face, you’re going to go to work and you’re going to smile.”
Kent now works full-time on a chicken farm in Colorado, where all his co-workers are Hispanic.
“Before all this, I wouldn’t work for anybody or with anybody that wasn’t white,” said Kent. “[Now] we have company parties, or they have quinceañeras, I’m the only white guy there!”
Redemption Ink, a national non-profit that offers free removals of hate-related tattoos, helped connect Kent with Fallen Heroes Tattoo in Colorado to begin the 15-hour process of covering his swastikas. The sterile environment is new to Kent who had his previous ink work done in prison.
“I’ve never, never, never been inside of a tattoo shop getting a professional tattoo,” he said.
Kent believes the painful process will help him move forward after spending years as a member of a violent skinhead group based in Arizona. As a father of two young children, Kent also hopes his children will see the world differently.
“I don’t want my kids to live the life I lived and live with hate,” said Kent. “I want my kids to know me for who I am now—a good father, a hard worker, and a good provider.””
@ the punch a Nazi crowd
Huh… almost like just being there for someone and talking to them can change their minds
Oh now that’s just crazy talk.
I bet if she just punched him that would have worked sooner
Yuuup
Noice
awesome for him, that he got deradicalized.
but the people above me are goddamn idiots. one doesn’t kill (replacing punch with this since it’s good to clarify goals) a nazi for the nazis sake. it’s for their victims sake.
hell, revoking naziism may not even save this man’s life. if he ever did any harm in the name of supremacy, then his death would be righteous.
but all of this has no impact on the fact that it’s great that this guy is no longer a nazi.
even if he gets the death he may very well deserve, at least he didn’t hurt any more people, and at least he got to live not as a nazi for however long
This lady broke him of his shittiness for the victim’s sake too. This guy not only won’t hurt anyone for the sake of his beliefs, but he is actively doing good, and seemingly doing greater good by the community in which he found himself. Or are you thinking that going to prison and reforming isn’t enough of a punishment for crimes committed?
I wouldn’t even take this attitude with a fucking communist, and they’d happily murder both you and I given the chance if history is any indicator. People changing objectively for the better is always something worth celebrating.i have no idea whether imprisonment was punishment enough, because the article does not specify what he was imprisoned for, how long, where, or what sort of things he may have done in prison as an active nazi.
prison didn’t reform him. the article was quite clear on that. his connection to outside humanity reformed him.
i’m not concerned with “greater good”, which is a bs term anyways. i’m concerned with what’s just, and the fact that there might very well be justice in this man’s death before reformation is an indicator that it absolutely wouldn’t be wrong to “punch” him then.
> thinks “greater good” is a BS term
> doesn’t think “justice” is a BS term
Look, I get that “greater good” has been used to justify atrocities… but what exactly do you think is used to justify inter-generational ethnic revenge killings, the kind that spiral out of control and start ethnic civil wars?
“Justice.”
You’re so eager to punch or kill, even though “any harm” could mean as little as graffiti.
Liberals may not understand how Liberalism works, but it does have mechanisms through which it does work. You have to think about the mechanics of the incentives.
When you let people marry their cousins, and those people are from extremely patriarchal families from extremely patriarchal cultures, those families can use the cousin marriage as means through which to control and isolate women and reinforce patriarchal cultural transmission, even when a cousin marriage between two others would not impose this effect.
There are mechanics to the incentives. For the liberalism to work, people can’t be so deeply controlled by their families. They have to open to atomization and cultural transmission.
When you want to kill someone regardless of the actual level of threat they pose or have posed, it undermines the incentives to quit.
For the Liberalism to work, “exit” has to be a viable strategy.
You might say “but it undermines the incentives to join!”, but the “lol punchanazi” crowd don’t understand the incentives to join and are ideologically prohibited from understanding or addressing them, so that doesn’t float.
Do you care about healing society? Or, like the man who launched van attacks on Muslims in the UK in response to multiple van attacks by Muslims in the same, even though they weren’t the same individuals, are you out for revenge?
And don’t give me “NAZIS ARE ON THE VERGE OF TAKING OVER AMERICAN SOCIETY!” thing. They aren’t, and those who think they are, are high on their own propaganda supply. Charlottesville required busing them from across the whole country.
Anyhow, if people thought that the “lol punchanazi” crowd would stop at actual, literal Nazis, they probably would just let it go, silently. But almost everyone knows they won’t.
So now we all have to be concerned about the safety of Nazis, because the “lol punachanazis” are terrible at things like “check that the man you’re punching is actually a Nazi first.” (”But why would a non-Nazi be afraid of being mistaken for a Nazi?” - because wearing a hat that said “Make Bitcoin Great Again” was enough to get maced.) Charlottesville may have resulted in a kill for them, but there was a masked man hitting people with a bike lock in Berkeley. It’s only through chance that “Antifa” (in the public perception) didn’t get “first blood.”
As such, each incident is going to drive justification for right-wing behavior.
“But what about the bad things right-wingers do?” - why the fuck do you think they’ve been losing the culture war (not fiscal policy) so badly? Would the nation be less right-wing if the Vietnam War hadn’t eroded confidence in national wars? There’s a sharp divide in Millennial support for Democrats based on age, which just so happens to coincide with the Bush Administration. They may have lost an entire generation over that dumbass Iraq war. Yes, the Iraqis got it worse, but bad right-wing actions have been part of the reason for society’s shift leftward, socially, for centuries, now.
free trade ain’t so great in a winner takes all world, which many industries are.
China realises this and tells silicon valley to go to hell, as a result we have two internets, one for the middle kingdom and one for everyone else.
given the circumstances this seems like an economically rational position to take: get the ad-revenue flowing in to the country instead of out, even without taking into account the other benefits of controlling all communications.
not a practical approach for small countries like Australia, which can’t hope to duplicate the US tech industry due to lack of capital. but what about the EU, in the hypothetical world where they were effectively a federation and gutsy enough to tell America to go to hell, as they would so dearly love to do?
They added Greece to the Euro, Argumate.
They added Greece to the Euro.
In proposing a European Federation capable of this action, you are not only proposing differences in the development of the European Union, but the ideological base necessary to complete the My Nation, Europa victory goal, which the current players are simply too clueless to effectively pursue.
I think you meant to address this to the blogger formerly known as sev
Voting machines with software not licensed by Diebold.
Exterminating millions of people might spike the crime rate a little. You know, murder being kind of a crime and all …
To continue with the recent China theme, my source for secret underground Chinese memes has informed me that I am “literally Yan Xishan”. (At least I think he meant me, and not my writeup.)
I think it’s mostly rooted in reasonable concerns about what’s actually being put in food, but a lot of it is also driven by woo-woo hippie bullshit, media hysteria, and people with legitimate eating disorders
I think the organic food industry mostly arose in response to consumer demand rather than the other way around, I could be wrong but I don’t think there’s anything particularly sinister in it, just ordinary food-related anxieties
Syntelligence ran into its own hurdle when it came to choosing a problem to solve with artificial intelligence. It began work on a product that would give expert investment advice to financial firms. The idea was to incorporate the expertise of Wall Street luminaries like Henry Kaufman, the former Salomon Brothers chief economist. But the company discarded the project because it determined that there were not any real experts when it comes to investment decisions.
tfw there are no experts for your expert systems
I’m just teasing, Anon-kun.
Anyhow, that reminds me that freaking out about cultural goods from Japan that don’t accurately reflect the country and importing them en masse is also a practice that dates to, if I remember correctly, the 1800s.
So being a weeb is trad. But if you’re hanging around the rationalsphere, you’ve probably already heard that as a joke already.
Anyhow, this discussion of China and racism got me thinking about how American companies talked about how only jobs that Americans didn’t want would be getting outsourced to China, and that it was nothing to worry about.
Which, like, implicit racism. China isn’t going to climb the ladder of production and become a fierce competitor because? What, are they just not cool enough?
hon, i’m adopted. from china. it’s. not that hard to figure out.
CONCEPT: You stand by a rural railroad crossing at exactly midnight, lit only by a waning crescent moon peeking through heavy clouds. A single boxcar rolls slowly down the almost imperceptible incline. Rattling wood and the distant croaking of crickets. As the boxcar reaches the crossing you see words spraypainted on the side. The words read: “THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY: IT’S REASONABLY USEFUL”. The boxcar rolls on.
You panic suddenly, realizing the implications of what this means, You run after the boxcar, shouting to anyone ahead that might hear “Pull the lever! Lives depend on it!“
That’s an extraordinarily good troll and I want to congratulate you for trying.
Honestly if the Indian government buying the bullet train off of the Japanese in the hopes it repeats its zero-accident track record in Delhi isn’t the most ingenious experiment in human biodiversity theory, please find me a better one.
Wait until Dinesh decides the bolts don’t really need to be screwed on as tight as Takashi told him and we’ll see if they match that record.
Bro, m8, buddy, pal,
We don’t have a non-corrupt India with which to separate out biological factors, including environmental ones (such as poor nutrition), so “does India fuck up the bullet train” does not work as an experiment for your hypothesis.
You’re not dealing any more in the scientific method than I am. You hazard to bet the fact that bullet trains won’t work in India is down to something intangible like “corruption” and I’m suggesting it’s got more to do with human capital.
People who shit in the street and ride on the top of freight trains aren’t doing so because of poor nutrition, fam.
But they might out of cultural factors. (Also, poor nutrition, in the aggregate, could harm national IQ and mental health, among other things.)
Corruption is a norm, it can be removed (Singapore) by sufficiently-determined group of actors passing and enforcing the right laws.
The trick is that it’s based on expectations about others engaging in corruption and expectations of getting caught. It also arises when it’s impossible to function without violating the rules.
When corruption rates are high, there is not only a social expectation that one will get away with it, but there’s also the effect of “but everyone else is doing it - why do they get to benefit, but not me?” Additionally, there are networks of corruption that can be relied on.
Increasing the odds of getting caught and punished above a certain level eradicates the pro-corruption network effects. (This could be achieved with a series of sting operations all unleashed at once as a form of shock therapy.) At that point, corrupt officials become isolated individuals with far less expectation of getting away with it.
After a while, the next generation of bureaucrats rises in which the default is that corruption is almost unthinkable, and the relative rarity at that point makes it much less costly to police.
Under Communism, because it’s so at odds with reality, arresting the corrupt officials won’t work as well because they may have to lie and be corrupt to survive, normalizing corruption. Similarly, some cultures with a strong external locus of control or other elements may be prone to corruption.
The political climate necessary to even establish such a thing suggests sufficient power mass to deal with most of the marginal sources that would turn people towards wanting a European ethnostate to begin with.
I don’t think what most of the people becoming identitarians right now really want is racial purity. I just think that they think racial purity is the only way to get what they want.
Are you kidding? The Leftists would be absolutely furious if I got away with this, seeing as it denies the universalism of their ideals. They’d be furious even if it failed. They’d still be furious if I also gave one to the Black Nationalists. (They wouldn’t be furious if I gave one to Black Nationalists but not White Nationalists, but, eh.)
Anyhow, as for “nonwhite immigrants embracing the Rights of Englishmen” - that’s more a matter of social equilibrium forces and cultural replication, not genetics, IMO. (Also banning cousin marriage WRT its social effects, but cousin marriage rates are fairly low in the US.)
We need to slow immigration to get housing costs under control anyway.
And besides, if you get a little city-state of your own, then surely you can prove that the “White Way is the Right Way™” and that really it is about genetics and not culture. Right?
I think it’ll fail, but I’m willing to make that bet.
no, but covert ray guns and agents of the NWO gangstalking random people are not drawing obvious conclusions from things literally every person can observe
I know you want to say that everything I say that isn’t how you want the world to be is a result of mental illness, but this really, really isn’t. It’s an observation of facts everyone has, but isn’t putting together because it would make them upset. Some of those facts are right there in the post you decry: Americans are remembered as being wicked and evil and have an infinite debt for practicing slavery. North Africans and Ottomans do not. Because North Africans and Ottomans killed all the people they enslaved and Americans did not.
Collective Intergenerational Ethnic Justice isn’t even my term, and it punishing people for not committing genocide is not originally my observation. If we apply ethnic debts based only on the existence of descendants of the people who were wronged, then we ignore crimes which were carried out to not leave any descendants. And when we regard an ethnicity that wronged another ethnicity without committing genocide as being inherently wicked and carrying an infinite debt (because the descendants of those they wronged will always be around, and the past cannot be changed so there will always be something to blame on it), but an ethnicity who wronged another ethnicity and successfully committed genocide is sinless because nobody is around to complain about how their ancestors were treated, then that’s pretty fucked up! “Punishing people for not committing genocide” is a fair summary of the problems with those incentives!
Are you just going to overlook the part here where most of the white nationalists really hate the Jews? And the part where the Jews that wanted an Israel were not among the least competent of all Jews?
Anyhow, if it’s small and powerless enough, I don’t really care if there’s some racially-exclusionary city of 50,000 - 100,000. They get to have their little white ethnostate, the rest of us get to have them no longer included in our politics.
Maybe they’re right, and it’ll be full of great city-state statistics like Hong Kong or Singapore, only you know, ethnonationalist. Probably not, though. We’d have to intervene if they tried to bring back slavery or something.
As you may know, street fights with these people are being used as a justification from the Left to attack our rights, and the behavior of a bunch of fight-happy Communists smashing junk is being used for the same by the Right.
As mentioned before, the white nationalist city-state would probably fail, but that’s okay because that happening would further discredit white nationalism.
When my cat stands near me and meows constantly in a clearly dissatisfied way but I can’t tell what he wants, and he doesn’t want food and he doesn’t want his box cleaned and I already pet him, is that Ask Culture or Guess Culture?
Your enemies are not greedy, they are afraid.
They are dumb, but afraid.
Under SJW/idpol/Intersectionality, fear is morally wrong though, unless accompanied by Wokeness, best as I can tell.
I don’t think that’s true? It depends on whether people think that the specific fear is justified. A woman who is afraid of being raped is usually not going to be mocked for it from SJ circles, even if she is decidedly unwoke, unless maybe she’s afraid in such a way that it reads as something specifically racist rather than a fear of men in general. But if it’s a fear of an oppressor-class, that usually results in nothing but sympathy (from inside SJ circles).
…anyway, yes, a lot of people doing bad things are afraid. Not all of them, but a lot. And that’s an important thing to keep in mind whenever you’re trying to develop a plan for responding to them.
It’s impermissible to voice a fear of rape for immigrants or other non Whites. I’ve seen people mocked and bullied into silence for asking for advice in dealing with their established sexist Indian boss, because being worried about getting fired for being pregnant is mockable, even if you boss has done that very thing previously, if you mention that said boss is Indian.
And let’s not even get into if it’s permitted to notice that local gang membership is usually limited to a fairly narrow ethnicity and presentation, making elevated caution around those matching that description wise.
Oh, or that the local more Brown school is also the one with horrible teachers a high rate of violence. The only reason you wouldn’t want your kids to attend is racism tho.
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about with “it reads as specifically racist”. I’m saying it doesn’t have to do with the perceived political valence of the speaker in general, it has to do with whether people read it as “oppressor afraid of the oppressed” or “oppressed person afraid of the oppressors”. A white woman afraid of black men is considered mockable; a black woman afraid of white men is not. I don’t think this changes if the white woman is a leftist feminist and the black woman is a Republican.
And maybe that’s what you’re saying? But I think “wokeness” is generally used to describe political valence, not characteristics like the race of the person in question? Even if people do also make assumptions about political valence based on race.
Wokeness IS an inherently racial lense through which to view the world: it is ontologically impossible for a Woke person to fear eg. Black men as Black men, and only as men if their blackness is occluded. If a Woke person fears Black men, they aren’t actually Woke.
the Mongolian terror only predates Columbus by 200 years, killed a similar number of people as the colonisation of America – vastly more if the European death toll from the plague they spread is taken into account – and the people responsible are still idolised as national heroes today.
there are various reasons for why we judge the Mongols less harshly than the Spanish and the British, but none of them are very good ones.
I think we have less visceral hatred of the Mongolians because their slaughter imperialism has basically no impact on the world today.
There’s some Mongolians who have national pride in Genghis khan but that affects nothing. Mongolians have no power over other people. Mongolian is a geopolitically weak country, no existing country has a ruling class of mongols oppressing non-Mongols.
that sounds like we only care about bad stuff that we can use as leverage to obtain concessions in the present day, or bad stuff is only bad if it’s politically useful for it to be bad.
You’re kind of ignoring that literally the entire purpose of pointing out that something is bad is to push people towards enacting change to correct a current problem. If saying that something is bad doesn’t actually impact any real-world issue, then there’s no difference between that and saying nothing.
The term “virtue signalling” is overused by reactionaries to the point where it really just means “someone said something I don’t like”, but complaining about the Mongolian atrocities in a day and age where they don’t have any geopolitical relevance outside Mongolia fits the original concept of that. It might make you feel good, but in the end it doesn’t actually do anything.Indeed, but many people don’t actually realise these examples are highlighted for political purposes, and it warps their understanding of the world, as Tumblr regularly demonstrates.
Knowing that is part of why I just don’t care as much.
Particularly, about things like “they’re occupying Native American lands! All of America belongs to the Native Americans! It’s stolen!”
First, collective ethnic land ownership is ethnonationalist, and they claim to be against ethnonationalism.
Second, collective ethnic responsibility ties strongly into identities that promote ethnonationalism, but they claim to be against ethnonationalism.
Third, they don’t care when others do it, particularly if they aren’t the “wrong” ethnicity.
So it’s mostly just a political cudgel and can be mostly ignored.
“don’t you think they would do it if it was profitable??” ignores the numerous examples of companies sleep walking off a cliff due to attachment to their existing way of doing things, or delusional belief that their business model will never need to change, or just sheer idiocy on the part of management.
“The right-wingers are just playing like there’s nothing serious at stake.”
Yeah, remember when the social conservatives used being offended as a political weapon? And then it got mocked and treated as non-serious by their rivals on the Left?
Well, the social Left adopted being offended as a weapon, too, at the same time, so of course the response is going to be mock it and treat it as non-serious.
This is going to be especially common where there is no expectation of good faith.
Does Australia have the thing where male teachers are automatically suspect at all times for agreeing to be within 50m of children?