Anonymous asked:
diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:
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.
May 2016: http://slartibartfastibast.com/post/144162498824/doc-zandipoo-america-has-35-fewer-police
And that is why the Irish made better cops: Less recent cousin marriage.
“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?
Anonymous asked:
slartibartfastibast answered:
My own view is that some of these things are easier to prevent and deal with than others.
We’ll probably never get rid of all the sex crimes. Or all the muggings. Or all the murders. We’ll have to keep chipping away at them forever.
But some marginal sources of murders, or arsons, or sex crimes are much, much greater than others. So not taking taking steps that have a high marginal reduction in crimes for a low marginal cost is dumb. Doubly so if the reason for not doing so is also dumb/erroneous.
And also in this sense I tend to view the increase as being largely unnecessary, whereas we must essentially accept that there will be some minimum number of car thefts if we don’t execute all car thieves and a number of innocents accused of car theft.
Anonymous asked:
I will never submit to Hyperpatriarch One, or his mind control. I’ll flip my banshee switch before I allow that to happen, and my body will keep fighting until it’s rendered completely inoperable.
