1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
argumate
argumate

The other issue here is “melting pot” ideology. The melting pot imagines that all cultures can not only coexist, but also borrow from each other indiscriminately, and blend together into a colorblind mush.

quick: dailystormer or everydayfeminism

mitigatedchaos

How about truth?  The entire point of Melting Pot is to destroy deep cultural differences and leave only surface ones.

It’s the ethnic food court model of culture - lots of different dishes, all served on the same Capitalist plate.

Under melting pot, a more painful cultural difference like FGM is usually destroyed and replaced with bland (and less violent) Liberalism.

politics culture

More you might like

flakmaniak
argumate

hmm arguing with a straight face that racism against white people is bad because it’s a slippery slope that can lead to racism against non-white people

shieldfoss

…I

OK separately I think racism against white people is bad because it is racism.

But also I actually think that yes, unironically this? If you officially start designating races and you treat them differently (e.g.: Affirmative action), people will follow suit by thinking of them differently. 

flakmaniak

Isn’t this just what @mitigatedchaos argues all the time, that all racism is empowered and normalized by all other racism? (And the generalized version of this for the left’s hypocrisies.)

mitigatedchaos

More seriously, while being racist towards white people is bad on its own merits, either as a violation of justice - judging someone for the actions of another - or on more Utilitarian grounds, most of the people that are seriously racist against the whities aren’t going to accept those arguments.

Thus the appeal to something they might actually care about.

It’s possible to create political will out of thin air, but a lot of the time it’s in reaction to historical or material factors, and political will with those factors will have deeper roots.

It’s important to realize along with this, that most politics will occur around the margins - whether groups of white supremacists are growing or shrinking, whether swing voters shift from one party to another, and so on.  Strong believers do have an effect, but it’s necessary to have raw power mass at your disposal.

As such, the question is not about “but if we be nice to our rivals, they will still be maximally evil,” but about “what’s the marginal rate that people will enter or leave our enemy’s coalition?”

Now that doesn’t mean playing along nicely all the time, but for goodness sake people should be very careful and specific in who they are targetting, and most racism is really bad at doing that.

Source: argumate racepol politics the culture war

I actually suspect that the switch to identity politics over class politics may have been based on a growing ineffectiveness of class politics.

“BUT THE POOR!” lost ground as more cached arguments were built up against it, even if it wasn’t entirely justified.

“BUT RACISM!” still had a lot of bite and could circumvent some of those cached arguments.  So, it’s natural to shift to it and build the platform around it.

It had a lot of bite, anyway.

There was always the focus on what was morally right, even in the minds of people who claimed they didn’t believe in morality, over what was effective policy, so now we get a lot of talk about guilt, or about pie in the sky ideas of “dismantling the systems of X oppression requires dismantling capitalism” (and people remember how “we need to dismantle capitalism” went last time), and not so much about “we should distribute multivitamins to the poor.”

I mean, that does sometimes get through, but the zeitgeist doesn’t seem to care about it as much as it cares about language policing and thinks that beneficial policies will just naturally unfold once everyone acknowledges their sin.

politics
argumate
argumate

@the-grendel-khan:

Where, oh where, is the constituency for moderate liberal democracy, the constituency for assimilation? Radicals to my left, saying you should bring your vile customs here; fascists to my right, saying you should keep your vile customs at home. Where are the liberals saying that you can bring the surface features of your culture here–we’ll cover your traditional bread-and-protein dish in cheese and sugar, and your myths and heroes will appear in our comic books–but the rest, you have to leave behind. Your religion will be about as mighty a cultural force as Unitarianism; your deep tribal divisions will mean as much as anti-Irish sentiment means nowadays; you will be another slice of modern liberal democracy with a fancy new paint job.

Where are the liberals who believe in the awesome assimilating power of the West?

mitigatedchaos

That sounds like cultural erasure, my friend.

You wouldn’t want to use your vile White Western Imperialist Colonialist Culture to erase that of proud foreign People of Colour and other Minorities, would you?

In other words, the people now believe their own information-culture war munitions.  Those whose goal is to play ideological chicken with Islam and cultures that involve FGM and honor killings, and think Liberalism will win, on purpose, are becoming fewer and farther between.

The actual purposes of both diversity and religious tolerance were not even forgotten, as they weren’t even known in the first place.

politics culture identity politics
bambamramfan
Jon Stewart, John Oliver…mostly enact the pure arrogance of the liberal intellectual elite: “Parodying Trump is at best a distraction from his real politics; at worst it converts the whole of politics into a gag. The process has nothing to do with the performers or the writers or their choices. Trump built his candidacy on performing as a comic heel—that has been his pop culture persona for decades. It is simply not possible to parody effectively a man who is a conscious self-parody, and who has become president of the United States on the basis of that performance.”
Zizek citing Stephen Marche
(via slavoj–zizek)
Source: slavoj--zizek politics trump
argumate
argumate

the idea that Milo can’t be racist because he’s Jewish or can’t have regressive gender politics because he’s gay is just strange, I mean isn’t that the exact kind of identity politics weirdness that he and his acolytes decry?

or is it supposed to function as a tu quoque to his opponents?

I mean it just seems like the correct response to allegations of racism or sexism or whatever would be to own it and stick to his guns.

mitigatedchaos

It may be operating on the theory that if this brute categorization is weaponized and shoved in the Left’s face enough, they’ll get the idea that Venn Diagram Intersectionality is dumb and cuts the corners off of people to get them to fit in the overlapping circles of identity prescribed for them.

If that is the intent, it won’t actually work, though.  We’re talking about the same political movement that pushed identity politics so much that white nationalism is starting to come back from the dead.

politics
osberend
kontextmaschine

Mike Cernovich acquired a copy of that “Shitty Men in Media” list (he was offering $10,000) and is using it to run hit pieces

says he’s going to give the accused a chance to reply, I suspect that’s an excuse to sequence them strung out for maximum news impact, in priority as culture war enemies

slatestarscratchpad

What a moron.

These people are going to get away with it, because the accusations will forever be associated with the alt-right. If he’d waited a week or two, someone else would have taken the bait, published, and the media would have eaten it up.

But now the whole issue has been coded “of interest to racists” and everyone else will be careful not to touch it. The people involved will defend with “You’re accusing me of sexual harassment? Aha, I see you’re a fan of Mike Cernovich” and it’ll never go anywhere.

shieldfoss

here you are assuming Cernovich intends to bring abusers to justice in an effort to help women

which

i mean

osberend

Nah, the analysis still applies if he wants to take down Biddle et al. for being sociopolitical enemies. Where it falls apart, of course, is if he really just wants to gather money and love from guess existing base for “boldly standing up to the hypocritical liberal media establishment,” etc. In that case, he’s actually better if the left drops it as a result of his support, because it gives him more “lone voice crying the wilderness” cred.

mitigatedchaos

Beyond just him, does it not empower the hard right in general if this wagon circling happens?

One of the things that’s been really empowering for the hard right (in my opinion) are conditions in Europe, including sex crimes.  Because of just who was committing those crimes, they were able to gain a temporary monopoly on “justice” as a platform for that particular issue.  

Do people realize how bad that is for Liberals?

They’re building a narrative that the Left and the Liberals are thick with pedophiles, molesters, and sex traffickers, and that when they aren’t committing those crimes themselves, the Left and Liberals are willing to overlook them depending on ethnicity.

Circling the wagons isn’t what the Liberals should do.  The way to prevent the hard right from gaining ground in Rotherham was to be better than they were, by actually enforcing the laws, like they are supposed to and, ostensibly, which is in line with their principles.

We’ve seen that at least some of the hard right are willing to fabricate a narrative if they have to, but a non-fabricated narrative has a lot more solidity to it.  

So maybe they circle the wagons, and this outsider can’t actually take these guys down.  But what if the point isn’t to take them down?  What if the point is recruitment?  Long-term recruitment, shifting the margins of power, which, when you only need a majority, matters.

Their faction is relatively small right now, but it has room to grow in proportion to how badly their rivals fuck up and/or are disconnected from reality.

Source: kontextmaschine rape discourse cw gendpol politics the culture war

For the record, my conception of Nationalism is multiracial, rooted in a group identity based on culture, ideology, and reciprocal loyalty rather than race.

Each nation has a different immigration policy best suited to it.  I don’t consider the racism in various nations good, even if I think restrictive immigration policy is suitable for that country.

politics nationalism
mutant-aesthetic
twitter.com

Julian Assange 🔹 on Twitter

“10/ Here's Singapore's long term prime minister Lee Kuan Yew:”
a-sleepygoldenstorm

What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics.  

Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized electoral politics.

mitigatedchaos

Yes, my fear is that Lee Kuan Yew is right.

Source: a-sleepygoldenstorm politics torches in the night racepol
flakmaniak
argumate

hmm arguing with a straight face that racism against white people is bad because it’s a slippery slope that can lead to racism against non-white people

shieldfoss

…I

OK separately I think racism against white people is bad because it is racism.

But also I actually think that yes, unironically this? If you officially start designating races and you treat them differently (e.g.: Affirmative action), people will follow suit by thinking of them differently. 

flakmaniak

Isn’t this just what @mitigatedchaos argues all the time, that all racism is empowered and normalized by all other racism? (And the generalized version of this for the left’s hypocrisies.)

mitigatedchaos

Death to the Imperialists, long live the Empire.

Source: argumate racepol the culture war
See this in the app Show more
Top Photos