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.
wirehead-wannabe asked:
femmenietzsche answered:
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.
neoliberalism-nightly said: unbreakable encryption is already here but that’s not the issue when you literally leak information all the time
neoliberalism-nightly said: it may be possible for people to use machine learning and all that to make junk information trails against other data mining AIs and etc.
neoliberalism-nightly said: lol startup idea
neoliberalism-nightly said: omg AI arm race
Perhaps the real challenge is coming up with something that more than .5% of the population would actually use.
Humans shed uniquely identifiable cells wherever they go, leave behind a fine dust of their own DNA, form long-term attachments to other humans, blaze like a torch in infrared, are incapable of true randomness, have identifiable body language quirks they can’t even perceive let alone change; we fantasise about flying under the radar but that’s just wishful thinking.
My intuition is that criminals will still commit crime, thinking of some way to get beyond this.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
Actually a fair critique in some ways; the early years of concrete/glass/steel construction were not pretty.
I have no clue why some buildings are considered pretty and others ugly, it all seems so arbitrary to me. And like the point of buildings is to protect the people and machines inside from the elements, not to look pretty, why does everybody care (this is all a subset of the sentiment “why does everybody but me have such a strong visual aesthetic sense”)
It’s a sort of passive emotional buff. Good-looking buildings feel better to be in and around even when they perform the same function. Bad-looking buildings are a bit emotionally draining.
edit: I mean, this doesn’t explain why some buildings look better or worse, but that is how people react to/treat them.
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.
sharia law is just one of the many evils of the scary brown people-unless christians do it, then thats cool and american
fuuucckkk
I will continue never going to Alabama.
Not missing much tbh.
(x)
Please calm down, this is not anywhere near as bad as it seems.
This is a megachurch with a giant campus that hosts a K-12 school and a seminary. After Sandy Hook, they decided that it would be safer if they had campus police. If they get them, they’ll basically act like any other campus police. They’ll be fully trained, they’ll be restricted to the campus, etc.
The above link has basically no info; try this one. It’s from NBC, which leans left.
Come on guys, with fake news constantly circulating, you should know to Google anything that immediately provokes your sense of outrage. This may stretch the idea of “separation of church and state” to its breaking point, and you don’t have to like or accept it, but if it passes (it still needs to get past the House), it’s not going to signal an American theocracy.
Yeah right-wingers are arguing it’s not that bad because there are already university campus police, and there are even religious universities like BYU that have their own police. However, there is no non-creepy reason why a megachurch couldn’t just hire heavily armed security guards like all the other megachurches. Everybody in those places is packing, Jesus.
On the other hand, having their own pocket police force is a perfect shield for covering up sexual abuse, embezzlement, fraud and other crimes by church leaders.
Hopefully groups like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State can defeat this in a higher court.
Technically, depending on the state, heavily-armed security may not actually be able to do much of anything except notify the police. If security removes someone by picking them up and carrying them out because they refused to leave, if no injury occurred, is that assault?
Some means by which the megachurch could fund their own branch of the municipal police might destroy the political will to do this, but of course that has to be weighed against the police depending on them for additional funding. And of course, I imagine you don’t actually want security guards to have more power.
