tbh I suspect that TriggeredMedia is stuck in a loop that unless they defend literally every action done by American cops, the Anarchists are right and the state must be dismantled. they simply cannot conceive that "make better policies for better cops" could even be an option. (partly this 'contradiction' relates to other ideological policy constraints on e.g. welfare spending as alternative methods of crime reduction, most likely)
Like I said, this is what smoking pure ideology looks like. Memorize a few phrases and then think of ways to reduce everything to these phrases.
I know I sound like a broken record when I say this, but tumblr is really shockingly sex-negative. Yes, there are lots of teenagers here, but when I was a teen I recall being much more fascinated by the positive possibilities of sex than freaked out by the wrong turns, and all I see is people 1) fretting about sex as though it’s a minefield of horrors or 2) mocking people who are outspoken about enjoying sex. We spent all of the 80s and 90s fostering open dialogue, and… now I don’t know, it’s like everyone’s uncomfortable again.
I hate to be that person, but…
Maybe cybersex can be this light, airy, fun thing, but real sex, unless it’s in a monogamous, committed relationship, has characteristics that are actively against that.
When hetero, it always has the risk of babies. It always has the risk of incurable disease. It always has the risk of either causing or surfacing trauma. It’s extremely vulnerable and sensitive. It exposes our bodies with all the underlying concerns we have about them.
And it’s part of pair bonding.
A committed monogamous relationship
Ensures greater resources for parenting, should it come to that, rather than single parent destitution
Limits exposure to disease
Allows longer-term discussion and working through trauma with up to the maximum share of attention one person can provide, rather than having to open up about it repeatedly to strangers
Incentivizes mutual, reciprocal understanding as beneficial tit-for-tat
Requires opening up deep vulnerability about ourselves and our bodies to only one person, which many find less emotionally difficult
Promotes emotional bonding with someone who will emotionally bond back and still be there, regularly in one’s life
In that environment, sex can be fun, experimental, or exploratory, without having to worry so much about secondary consequences, straight, gay, or somewhere in-between.
My post didn’t opine about monogamy, so I’m not going to touch that. With regard to risk, of course sex with many partners is higher-risk than monogamy; no one questions that.
What I object to is how it seems like when sex is discussed on tumblr it’s usually in the context of risk avoidance, or with distinct distaste. When motorcycle enthusiasts or gun enthusiasts discuss their hobbies, they do it with a strong understanding of the major risks involved (if they’re smart). They sometimes even discuss the risks. But they also express excitement and enthusiasm for motorcycles and guns, and they aren’t uncomfortable about talking in detail on those subjects. In that context, the risks don’t render the activity shameful or wrong; they’re just known risks which any hobbyist should take into account. Sex is, or will become, an entertaining pastime for most of us, so I sometimes wish we could discuss it openly in that light.
But I’ve now spent too much time doing exactly what I dislike - discussing sex in a theoretical, detached way instead of talking about my own sex life / reliving good experiences / exploring fantasies - so I’ll stop here.
Fair enough.
But also I’d rather not talk too much about my sex life because of, uh, let’s call it gender hangups prevalent in both the feminist and traditionalist discourse.
Absolutely nothing could justify doing this to another person.
This article doesn’t mention that this teenager was arrested for marijuana possession. He’s being tortured over a victimless crime.
There are not victims of the drugs? I’ll let mexico and so many people here killed by gangs know that.
There are victims of drugs, but pot isn’t some sort of cyberpunk drug that turns dudes into hunter-killer zombies, and
1) Stun guns are “less than lethal” weapons, not non-lethal weapons. If you’re a gun enthusiast you should know this.
2) This isn’t the law. The law does not indicate electrical torture for pot, not even in spirit. In doing this, these men are undermining the faith of the people in the justice system and, indirectly, the very legitimacy of the state.
3) If corporal punishment were indicated (which it isn’t), some other method less likely to cause a heart attack would be a better option.
You don’t have to defend every single thing or else the anarchists win, dude. You only have to support changes to policies that would reduce this behavior in the future, such as independent prosecutorial boards for police misconduct at the state level which are not beholden to the police for their ordinary duties. America doesn’t lose anything by making its police better.
I was joking. Artificial wombs are predominantly owned by private fertility companies, especially in Europe and North America, which lease them out as part of their designer baby packages.
For the most part, the only state-owned artificial wombs are in Japan, Korea, and China, and in China they’re purely for military concerns. Though the ten thousand blossoms program in Japan has performed about as well as can be expected.
Gentle reminder that I don’t think that men are bad or that women are bad, but the discourse around them dating is bad:
Some women often hold other men and women to patriarchial gender standards
Other people act like nobody adheres to rigid gender roles any more and there is no cost to breaking them
Straight women suck at understanding what dating a woman is like
People don’t grow up right when they turn 18
Most people gradually do grow up around 22-25
Dating experiences carry over from your time as a teenager or a self-conscious adult, even though they don’t apply any more
Dating advice is dependent on lots of context, but if you are the kind of person who needs advice, you likely cannot tell what is relevant and which kind of advice applies to you
surely human relationships are the most difficult thing people ever attempt.
Hot take: making human procreation depend on human relationships was a bad idea.
Ice cold take! You are like 85 years late at least!
I was gesturing towards arranged marriages more than eugenics and artificial wombs, but either way I was hoping that this take was so cold it became hot again.
Sterilize everyone and have the State raise all children from embryos!
The rapes in Rotherham were a horrifying crime that could have been prevented
A combination of a liberal immigration policy, official adoption of multicultural value systems, and in particular a strong fear of offending Muslims allowed the travesty of Rotherham to continue
The value systems of many in the West and in particular in the United States are consistent with and likely to lead to similar horrible lapses like Rotherham again
There is generally insufficient awareness of what happened in Rotherham
It is bad tactics, extraordinarily obnoxious, and harmful to your ability properly consider all relevant factors* if you choose to bring up Rotherham at every possible relevant point, and many irrelevant points as well.
* Including, FWIW, factors that if ignored can lead to even worse sins than Rotherham itself.
There are a few different matters that I’m frequently accused of bringing up more often than is necessary. I don’t see it that way. People didn’t want to bring this up back when it mattered. I see my one-trackedness as making up lost ground. And there’s a lot of ground to make up.
Well you see, IME liberal multiculturalists tend to think that anyone to the right of them worrying about this sort of thing is a paranoid bigot that is hallucinating things because they are huffing racism, and that the only possible reasons anyone would worry are unjustified xenophobia and anti-brown-people racism. (Rationalists are kind enough to give a much greater benefit of the doubt than twitter liberals, because they are Rationalists. Which is good.)
So unfortunately, from time to time, it must be shoved into their faces that no, these concerns are not paranoid bigot hallucinations, because if it happened in one place and was covered up, then there are good odds it’s still happening in other places and being covered up.
I think once you properly incorporate that information into your worldview, what you have doesn’t count as Liberalism anymore. It could be reasonably close, but it’s a certain… cultural consciousness that was deemed morally reprehensible at the end of the last century, because it was considered dangerous and oppressive.
when i bring up the disabled, it’s not an epic gotcha, it’s a “hey, the natural order genuinely culls the disabled on a scale that would make Nazis look liberal”
Just gotta be careful so we don’t run out of fuel for the exoskeletal powersuit that is technology.
I know I sound like a broken record when I say this, but tumblr is really shockingly sex-negative. Yes, there are lots of teenagers here, but when I was a teen I recall being much more fascinated by the positive possibilities of sex than freaked out by the wrong turns, and all I see is people 1) fretting about sex as though it’s a minefield of horrors or 2) mocking people who are outspoken about enjoying sex. We spent all of the 80s and 90s fostering open dialogue, and… now I don’t know, it’s like everyone’s uncomfortable again.
I hate to be that person, but…
Maybe cybersex can be this light, airy, fun thing, but real sex, unless it’s in a monogamous, committed relationship, has characteristics that are actively against that.
When hetero, it always has the risk of babies. It always has the risk of incurable disease. It always has the risk of either causing or surfacing trauma. It’s extremely vulnerable and sensitive. It exposes our bodies with all the underlying concerns we have about them.
And it’s part of pair bonding.
A committed monogamous relationship
Ensures greater resources for parenting, should it come to that, rather than single parent destitution
Limits exposure to disease
Allows longer-term discussion and working through trauma with up to the maximum share of attention one person can provide, rather than having to open up about it repeatedly to strangers
Incentivizes mutual, reciprocal understanding as beneficial tit-for-tat
Requires opening up deep vulnerability about ourselves and our bodies to only one person, which many find less emotionally difficult
Promotes emotional bonding with someone who will emotionally bond back and still be there, regularly in one’s life
In that environment, sex can be fun, experimental, or exploratory, without having to worry so much about secondary consequences, straight, gay, or somewhere in-between.
“The people in this city looked hollow, like shitlibs. They’d broken their backs lifting Moloch up to heaven, and now they were down here in the gutter, fornicating dysgenically. The whole town stank of high time preference.”
– No Enemies to the Right (an Alexei Codeski novel)
She walked hypergamously into my office. Tall, blonde and Nordic subtype. On average, the best ones always are.
I looked up and took a hard pull from my flask. It was filled with contraband gin, held up in the FDA approval process for years by demotic regulators. It burned like the core of a chronically mis-managed city in my bold, truth-telling throat.
“I need a PI” she said, sizing me up for long-term investment potential.
“A predictive index for what?” I asked, passing her shit-test with ease. “Don’t you know that noticing is illegal nowadays? I don’t do that kind of stuff any more.” I tossed my dog-eared copy of The Bell Curve into the wastebasket with a sigh and set it on fire.
“No, silly, a private investigator. I have a case.”The hamster was spinning furiously.
“I know. I was just ironically voicing outrageous opinions to ward off the uninitiated.”
She smiled in-groupically. “I like a man who can countersignal competence.”
It’s not obvious if you should have MORE affirmative action or LESS affirmative action depending on Charles Murray’s hypothesis form The Bell Curve and Coming Apart of an emerging cognitive elite.
Won’t merit-plus-class-based affirmative action increase social stratification in the long run?
The solution is clearly to create some kind of rich kid quota for menial jobs.
> not choosing a government voucher for genetic engineering and selection technologies
Get with the times, brah. Those IQ points aren’t going to enhance themselves. Directly, anyway.
For my part, I note that the Rightful Caliph of our community pointed out that American non-gun homicides are almost as high as total homicides in Western European countries, before you even add in the gun crime.
We have a lot of work to do in this country. I have some ideas, which some of you know if you’ve been reading this blog.
Guns laws themselves often seem relatively uncorrelated with crime.
And, over time, I’ve been shifting in favor of the second amendment, whereas in the past I wasn’t so sure about it.
The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”
There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations. Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.
They’ll just hide them. There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.
Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.
Mass shootings? Mass shootings by Muslims? Not enough. The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.
You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.
It’s true that this hasn’t always been the case in the past, that previous gun control laws were deliberately racist.
However, the clock ticks Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. Do the GOPpers trust that the following Democratic President will have their best interests in mind once the guns are gone? I’m guessing no.
So the kind of event we’re talking about, the one that convinces the current conservatives in this country to yield their firearms (and not bury them in boxes in their back yards) is likely one where Leftists start talking about how they need guns…
I rather doubt we’ve exhausted the limits for improving the abilities of the poor of our nation when it comes to lead removal, and poverty in this country is not evenly distributed.
The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”
There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations. Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.
They’ll just hide them. There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.
Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.
Mass shootings? Mass shootings by Muslims? Not enough. The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.
You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.
even BLM discourse typically strays into ethnic nationalism, either by advocating to supplant the white minority, or by black separatist nationalism.
Legit: I think the Liberal plan is implicitly “you can’t have oppression by an ethnic majority if you don’t have an ethnic majority,” but I don’t think they realize just how badly that can backfire.
The sad part is, once that little ideology-huffing guy leaves my image like the Anon asked, it will one day end up as part of a boomerpost on Twitter, where the ideology label is replaced with “DEMOCRAT PROPAGNDA”.
Its true use as a memetic ordnance does intend the first panel as a key part of the payload, but it lacks the full subtext without the rest of it:
The idea that Liberal Democracy is the natural moral order of the universe enables the very imperialism that people complain about, fucks up the countries that could have been made into real liberal democracies by that very imperialism, and gets people killed.
Against truth, we spread this idea of liberal democracy and human rights as the end of history, the final triumph of the Enlightenment ideals that reshaped our civilizations, out of fear that to do otherwise would result in a war of all against all. But this, too, had its consequences.
the camgirl discourse is interesting because it bumps into all these subterranean intuitions about women lacking power and moral agency which date back to when women were explicitly denied power and moral agency, plus the usual slut-shaming which typically lies beneath a thin veneer of weak sex positivity.
so when women choose to do sex work as independent operators without the traditional threat of male violence (pimps, street harassment, cops) and use the internet to cut out the middleman and simultaneously keep their customers at a safe distance, it completely upsets the apple cart.
the result tends to be discourse flailing around trying to find a patriarchal reason for why they feel compelled to engage in sex work in the first place, instead of doing something more meaningful and rewarding and yes less slutty dammit
I hope you don't mind if I crop that picture of the guy inhaling The Idea That Liberal Democracy Is The Natural Moral Order Of The Universe, because it's so good.
Knock yourself out, Anon-kun.
Not literally, though, of course. If you huff too much from that inhaler you’ll have an overdose and start believing American newsmedia, so only inhale just the little bit that you need to keep your soul alive.
I hope you don't mind if I crop that picture of the guy inhaling The Idea That Liberal Democracy Is The Natural Moral Order Of The Universe, because it's so good.
Knock yourself out, Anon-kun.
Not literally, though, of course. If you huff too much from that inhaler you’ll have an overdose and start believing American newsmedia, so only inhale just the little bit that you need to keep your soul alive.
Nothing says hyperatomization like an "ownership model" of parent-child relationships or a "trustee model" of parent-child relationships. To think these things are somehow more elemental in the construction of society than just having a "parent-child model" itself! (Not that I necessarily even disagree... just an observation.)
Ah, but for whom is the trustee model written?
Not for those who have a healthy parent-child model, which is difficult to explain and loaded with intuition, but for those who do not.
The trustee model is presented for those who can only see things as “the parent owns the child” or “the state owns the child”, with no in-between or drift from the axis, including various hypercapitalists. It is a framework to grasp at which is either safer for the children if they stop there, or allows a departure from that mindset altogether.
America: *destroys a country* America: Damn…this country needs some help. these poor people…. America: *destroys it again* America: Yikes, there’s no helping here
Magneto is an ethnic separatist and all of y'all’s political analyses of X-Men are horrible
I haven’t read any comic books but in the movies he literally tries to exterminate all humans on several occasions. I get that he has understandable motivations or whatever but like, genocide is bad even when it’s retaliatory genocide.
plus there are mutants with the literal power of killing everyone around themselves with no control whatsoever, of course that shit should be regulated
Nice to see someone else admitting that human rights are contingent on certain facts about humans.
honestly the more time i spend on tumblr and especially in discourse hell, the more i appreciate the simple ass allies whose only opinion is “being gay isnt wrong” its so refreshing to remember that most people irl have no idea what 90% of all yalls made up nonsense means
from someone who does have a niche identity, for the purposes of this conversation: no, niche identities aren’t made up, what’s made up is acting like every identity has its own specific and separate set of needs and oppressions, then trying to implement that needlessly and super complicated tangle of demands as a coherent political programme, instead of working on having a good lgbt coalition and fighting for specific rights that many different groups are missing. or even worse, giving up completely on having a coherent set of goals like this arrogant arse:
and to think i used to like calling myself queer …
That quoted passage reads like someone who wrapped all things they don’t like up into one big ball, thus forgetting that social hierarchies are not only caused by Capitalism.
Sometimes I wish tumblr had a downvote option to allow me to go hog-wild in fucking over fascist / anti-sjw / 4chan blogs.
Right, because that works so well on reddit…
Haha, in about ten minutes, downvotes would become a badge of pride, showing how successful the blog was at annoying people like OP. Plus the dumb call-out posts would immediately begin downvoting random fifteen year old girls into oblivion for not liking the right SU ship.
In a world of superpowers, you are the anomaly. After years of being bullied and being called ‘freak’, you finally can’t take it anymore and reveal your immensely powerful superpower
I looked at him as he picked up the phone. This hadn’t been the first time I’d used my powers, and it wouldn’t be the last, but usually I’d used them sparingly, it at all.
“What have you done, boy?” A man’s voice cracked out of the phone.
“What- Dad, what happened?” The boy asked.
“The house, boy! The house is gone! Big fence around the whole lot, they won’t even let us in, they’re saying the city has rezoned it as a toxic waste dump! Who did you piss off, son?” The man said.
The boy looked back at me.
Junior Municipal Master. The city itself - its concrete, its steel, its trees, and its zoning ordinances, bent to my will as easily as other people could throw fire or fly.
And he knew. The few who could knit the cities back together into something approximating housing and industry, after all the combat tore them up each day, well. The government needed them more than just another boy who could fight.
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the Kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Wishing to extend their knowledge, they first started browsing Tumblr.
The Great Learning except the intro is replaced with LISTEN UP BITCHES TIME TO LEARN YOU SOME FACTS
apricops said: Wishing to be unproblematic, they first sought to be woke. Wishing to be woke, they first sought to be bae
“rectify your blog” should be the new “pee your pants”
Why do you think it is that the discourse in general talks about economic inequality from technology driven labor obsolescence as a force of nature? We can, it seems, make pretty good predictions with how technology will advance over time but a lot of people seem to think certain social effects are inherently tied to them when we are the ones who will be deciding what moves to make next aside from unexpected events i.e. a massive earthquake disrupts infrastructure in a huge way or something
I mean “we” decide but in a distributed and uncoordinated way that feels like an unstoppable force of nature.
Did “we” decide to redesign our entire lives around car transport at an official meeting in the early 20th century, for example.
“How many layers of soulless, commodified and forced cultural and religious amalgamation are you on?” “idk, like maybe 3 or 4?” “You are like a little baby. Watch this”
Why can not these people just start a religion, so i can hate it and i dont need to describe them every time i hatepost about them?
shit man a dream catcher and a yin yang, we’re RUINING THE AMERINDIANS AND ASIANS
When what you’re fighting for is so ridiculous you talk shit about a cheap novelty gift most likely made in China.
Inb4 she blocks you.
So this post has been tagged as “#sjw” by the usual suspects, showing once more that this site continues to be tone deaf across the entire political spectrum. Perhaps the strangest, but not uncharacteristic response to this post was the unwarranted speculation that I’m somehow fighting for anything. My post contained no calls to action or even the suggestion of politics. I’m not part of the cultural appropriation hysterics crowd, and consistent with that I’m not calling for anything to be forbidden or sanctioned or to be racially or culturally policed. Perhaps we can focus on the things I wrote in the fairly short post, which shouldn’t be a challenge to read and digest, or so one would assume. I pointed out what I called “soulless, commodified and forced cultural and religious amalgamation“. Each of those words is important, more so than buzzwords that I didn’t use. The example should serve to illustrate all of those. First of all, that it’s a cheap novelty gift item is part of the issue. Both the tajitu symbol (often known as “a yin yang” among people who have a surface level of engagement and interest in Chinese culture) and the dreamcatcher are meaningful items that derive their meaning from associated spiritual beliefs. The tajitu illustrates the (primarily) Daoist concept of metaphysics, the idea that all apparent dualities emerge from one monadic principle. Dreamcatchers are tied to Ojibwe religion and are a concrete manifestation of a protective deity (the Spider Woman). You might notice that we’re not talking about the proverbial sausage added to mapo dofu, the strawman employed to imply that the opponent thinks culture will be destroyed if it’s combined with something foreign. Not a profane item like food or casua clothes or technology, each of these items has a specific, self-contained meaning, and each of them is tied to the spiritual beliefs of a specific group. Fact aside that these hence sacred and meaningful objects have been turned into “cheap novelty gifts” (hence, commodified), by combining them for aesthetics they lose their meaning. How is this object still a Daoist religious item? How is it still an Ojibwe cultural item? The only meaning and message this item conveys now is that of a commodified aesthetical item that is mainly meant to signal its owners attachment to non-western (and this is why whether the item carries Chinese or Ojibwe cultural connotation is moot) New Age liberal conceptions of harmonic and enlightened Others. Hence, it’s soulless - the two original items have lost their meaning, their potential for people to meaningfully relate to them, and have become a product that has a limited, commodified, self-masturbatory message. Finally, this item is a forced amalgamate because it is not the result of genuine, authentic cultural innovation and interplay and bricolage. You have been spending too much time arguing with fourteen year olds socialized in a hysterical, authoritarian environment, who might have made you believe that the only opposition to cultural syncreticism and innovation are leftist kids who want ethnocultural safe spaces. This is likely why you did not address the points in my post and went straight for the “SJW” arguments you brought with you. Consequently, you are uncritical about the fact that his is indeed a wholesale enterprise that is marketing these products because they know that in the US and elsewhere, enough green tea-drinking “spiritual but not religious” sufferers of colonial cringe desperate for an identity or two will buy the idea of a mystical, enlightened Other that is vaguely defined (Chinese? Indian? Native American? all the same, right?) but if at all then from western ideas of progressivism.
In closing I would like to stress that if I did not suggest this should be banned or forbidden or at all acted against, I do very explicitly say that this kind of uncritical and callous display of neutered, meaning-bereft symbols applies to the lowest common denominator and is helpful in marking individuals who you might otherwise have wasted time on socializing with. It is in this spirit that I would like to share the link to the item in question as well as the store (in Delhi, India) so that you can buy those, and maybe epically spite some top kek SJWs along the way.
Parting words: I’m a dude, but you do you when it comes to your likely logicd/mrcappadocian line of thought that someone who raises a point agsint the commodification of culture, be it from the left or the right, can only possibly a woman.
The only meaning and message this item conveys now is that of a commodified aesthetical item that is mainly meant to signal its owners attachment to non-western (and this is why whether the item carries Chinese or Ojibwe cultural connotation is moot) New Age liberal conceptions of harmonic and enlightened Others.
I wouldn’t put it past the Americans to institute public healthcare by way of compulsory military service so that everyone is nominally a veteran.
Making welfare programs politically legitimate through national service is an idea that gets floated around everyone once in a while. Also as a way to allow welfare for immigrants while also allowing free movement.
This blog is in favor of both welfare and national service.
"I think the key problem is the idea of ownership of the child." I see what you're getting at here, but I think it's pretty heavily misguided. Insofar as children can't take care of themselves, *someone* has to own them, and I trust the average parent to do that significantly more than I trust the state to do that - the state being the de facto owner of the child if parents are cut out of the picture.
I don’t think the concept of complete ownership of the child, or any human, is necessary. It is enough that parents bear full responsibility for the child and all of their actions. For example, death due to malnourishment because the child refused to eat would still be the fault of the parents.
Remember, it used to be legal and within the window for parents to make their children get a job (labor, not chores) while being entitled to all of its profit.
Remember how I wrote about “mommy makes me go to church” implying a history of abuse? Remember what I said about Russian communists being very concerned that the state will come in and take their children away just because they abuse them?
We need better orphanages and social services, not more locked down families. Jesus, everyone except triggeredmedia figured out that divorce is good because it gives failing families an out. Juvenal justice is the same thing.
If this sounds like some bullshit they’d pull in Singapore, that’s not an accident.
Sovereignty is won by force. Every murder, every bombing, every acid attack undermines the legitimacy of the government. Why listen to the government when someone else could kill you just as easily?
The mighty iron hand of the Singaporean state would not let such a thing go so easily. It would seek to crush such opposition.
These behaviors can be stopped at the margins, if they are stopped now. Otherwise, this is the future you choose.
I think white supremacists lean really hard on the framing that they’re not destroying peaceful integrated multicultural societies, they’re just noticing that those never existed anyway or are about to collapse anyway.
And of course it’s a transparent lie. There are lots and lots of societies that have had successful peaceful integration. Racists and xenophobes are the force making integration difficult and dangerous and fragile; there’s not some other force that they are just innocently noticing. (Bad economic conditions and weak governments and violence all contribute to making racist and xenophobic movements more appealing. But it’s important to observe that the ‘failure of multiculturalism’ is still caused by the racists and xenophobes acting, it’s not something that happens separately from them.)
Look, it’s true that Europe is not on the verge of a race war. They are not one more bombing away from all the white people mysteriously obtaining guns and launching a new “crusade” against the “saracens” amongst them. (They might be on the verge of the breakup of the EU.)
On the other hand, just because there is relative order does not mean things are as safe as they could be. What’s going on right now looks more like “ethnic tension.” When open Atheists get killed by vigilantes in Islamic countries it isn’t something you encounter on the street, usually. Likewise, when you see low-level violence it’s often going to be in low-SES areas, not where the tourists are. And, of course, that white guy making a van attack against seven random Muslims in response to van attacks by Muslims is more like an ethnic revenge killing in less-developed nations than a declaration of war.
And yes, it’s statistically improbable that you will be killed in the next concert bombing, and technically people should be more worried about falling furniture or whatever, but… The marginal costs are totally out of whack here, everyone knows these bombings are entirely unnecessary while it is pretty much inevitable that some people will die in furniture accidents no matter how hard you try.
Plus we all know that if the terrorists get their hands on an atomic bomb, they will vaporize New York. Furniture would never do this.
(We can also tell that the terrorism either isn’t really about stopping interference in the middle east, or that the terrorists are literally too stupid or ideological to realize what they’re doing isn’t working, because it has been very, very ineffective at that goal. Like, “the Bush Administration was able to get the American public to back the Iraq War” spectacularly ineffective. So “tolerate harder” is unlikely to stop it.)
Here is the problem. Multiculturalism as ideology makes for weak governments.
Wanting to maximize diversity is a non-sensical goal that should result in trying to create as many ethnic groups as there are people. All this “we need more diversity” and “celebrate diversity” stuff is like a religious law that was adaptive and then lost its usefulness but continued on because people didn’t follow it for its adaptiveness.
The real purpose of tolerance as a construct was to prevent continued justifications of war in Europe along religious lines, or something of that kind. It’s a social technology, not a virtue.
It is necessary to recognize the differences among cultures, and act accordingly. Liberalizing social atomization can only occur naturally if cultural forces/practices create the necessary environment.
With its “antiracism” and “decolonization” and opposition to assimilation, multiculturalism as ideology is actively preventing this.
You have to consider how different cultures propagate and support themselves. So that means, if you want to end this nonsense, well…
Ban cousin marriage, out to the second or even third degree. How exactly do these families keep such tight control on “their” women that they think that they own them? Well, being able to arrange marriages without even leaving the family might have something to do with it! Having to marry farther out means women must be given more freedom in practical terms, which will loosen and help eventually destroy their grasp.
Refuse to accept the legalization of polygamy. Polygamy is actually polygyny in practice usually, particularly in the countries these groups are coming from. The child marriage, patriarchal control of women, all of that flows from the gender ratio imbalance under polygamy. Polygamy is bad for women, it is bad for children, it is bad for wealth and for education. Even in the West.
Execute honor killers. Yes, I know, but we want to put the brakes on this now before it sticks. The key is to flip the social status of honor killers from “something those oppressive ethnic majority members stop us from doing and which we will resist” to “you’d have to be a fucking idiot to kill your sister and get executed for it.”
Make killing anyone for leaving a religion a hate crime. Again, it’s a method of control that prevents liberalizing atomization. If that isn’t enough, if people still kill others for leaving Islam, execute them.
Stiffer penalties for FGM and acid attacks. Not only are these methods that those communities use to reinforce their control and prevent atomization, but acid attacks have started catching on among the natives. Political pressure not to crack down on FGM must be stopped in its tracks before it can reach the critical theshold to be co-opted by political parties.
I’m going to start a new political party. It’s the Human Rights Abuses Are Bad party, and our platform is that we don’t like human rights abuses. I understand from this election cycle that this is a controversial opinion but I think it has a lot of merit
if you vote for the Human Rights Abuses Are Bad party then people will die
Actually, politics pretty much always involves deciding who is going to die.
That might be violent criminals, that might be cops, that might be dudes who are not violent criminals that get killed by cops anyway. That might be cancer patients who die because you didn’t immediately seize all wealth to use for treating cancer. That might be future patients that die because you seized all wealth, undermining new treatment development.
Even if you get rid of the state, that, too, is a decision about who will die.
Relating to the Japanese kimono issue, a surprisingly thorny topic is Chinese traditional dress from Qing dynasty (1644-1912).
This is the most recent “old China” costume available, and is seen in many iconic movies and TV dramas. But occasionally people object to it being worn in public, eg. for ceremonial purposes, due to all the awkward associations it has.
Firstly, the Qing dynasty was Manchu, not Han. This really should not matter, as in theory China includes dozens of distinct ethnic groups, and anyway Manchu is practically indistinguishable from Han at this point. But still, Qing is a foreign dynasty, much like Yuan (Mongols), and insufficiently Chinese.
Secondly, the later Qing dynasty was an era of humiliation for China, when the weakened empire was carved up by European empires and Japan, losing a lot of wars and signing a lot of unequal treaties under duress. So it’s a historical period that does not appeal to many nationalists.
Thirdly, the Qing dynasty is “old China”, feudalism, the bad old days, everything that new China got away from. There can’t be anything good about it, otherwise what would that say about new China. The younger generation might not feel this message as strongly, but it’s instructive to look at the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympics, which featured a historical retrospective which jumped from the Ming Dynasty to the 1990s, consigning the Qing, Nationalists, and Mao all to the memory hole.
So what is a nationalist cosplayer to do? Revive Hanfu, of course!
“A necessary departure point for such an examination is to apply a historical lens in order to construct a teleology whose endpoint is the emergence of neoliberalism. Subsequently, it will be shown here how WoW exists as a mechanism by which the neoliberal subject is interpellated (following Louis Althusser’s formulation) and thereafter recognizes itself as enfolded within the neoliberal schema. One can imagine this as the gamic process by which an individual creates a character, enters Azeroth (the world in which WoW is set) and brings themselves to the market, as represented by WoW’s auction house, ‘AH’ (a centralized location for players to buy and sell items). The character is subject to the rules of the game in a way that mirrors the player’s subjection to the neoliberal mode. Consequently, the player fully identifies with the on screen character such that the former derives pleasure from the latter’s actions and accomplishments. WoW conflates the on-screen avatar, the player and the neoliberal subject for ideological ends, as shall now be elucidated further.”—Neoliberal cyborg Science: World of Warcraft as gamic vehicle - 3:AM Magazine (via the-grey-tribe)
