Oceans Yet to Burn — mitigatedchaos I cannot trust it will actually...

anaisnein

mitigatedchaos

I cannot trust it will actually turn out like that at all due to how this has gone previously.
Why I specified “agreement to execute anyone who commits an honor killing” is that it’s an ideological sin to do that, and thus serves as a costly signal that they actually care and aren’t just trying to pull one over like they have previously, when they promised this stuff would not happen.
(Also it would de-normalize honor killings, but you get the idea.)

anaisnein

It brings in the whole existing orthogonal discourse over the death penalty and complicates the already complicated debate terrain. Also, summary execution is more of a What’s Wrong With Those Others thing and less a What’s Right About Us Here thing and I would think you wouldn’t be enthusiastic about that, it instantiates the cultural decay you’re postulating.

Well, let’s assume that the plan is to create an international-thinking city-state that values this free migration.

Right off the bat, the existing high-immigration city-state that does not have an issue with honor killings is Singapore, where the sentence for murder is death by hanging. Until 2012, this was mandatory. So flat out, if you engage in an “honor killing” in Singapore, they will kill you.

But of course, we don’t have to just copy-paste Singapore.

Cultural practices have inertia. Apply that inertia to Italian cuisine and you get Chicago-style deep dish pizza. Apply that inertia to throwing acid on women to control them, and you get acid attacks by British gangs.

They have to be stopped before that inertia can take hold.

And since we’re being so heavily about freedom of movement, we want to put the brakes on this within one generation, since we can’t necessarily rely on other methods, like limiting the maximum size of one incoming ethnic group and where they live in order to fragment them such that their number of cultural graph edges is insufficient to sustain their culture.

That leaves responding to barbarism and medieval behaviors, to some degree, with medieval means.

To some degree you can rely on liberal atomization, but only if the conditions are right for that atomization to have an effect, which means no cousin marriages or other barriers that honor-killers and the like can use to stop their families from atomizing. (And note that banning all new cousin marriages is, itself, not without controversy.) It also takes a while.

The sharper the change, the greater the degree of braking force necessary. It must be communicated not just to the men involved, but to the entire community they are a part of that this activity is not just socially disapproved of by the ethnic majority (who they may not care about), but that it is bullshit for chumps that only an idiot would engage in.

Getting executed because your took up arms against the state might be martyrdom, but getting executed because you honor-killed your sister is just stupid (and therefore low-status).

Otherwise you risk a long-burning change that could ride under the surface until it obtains enough political support (which may not be legalization, but just deliberately ignoring the problem).

If 5% of your population cousin marry, it takes a congressman to end it.
If 10% of your population cousin marry, it takes a President.
If 30% of your population cousin marry, it takes a King.
The right time to end it, then, is before it cracks 6%.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics death cw ban cousin marriage flagpost

More you might like

slartibartfastibast

politics policy ban cousin marriage now

Anonymous asked:

Is cousin marriage for one generation bad beyond the genetic and possible tight family control aspect?

Well, see, here’s the thing. White people (broadly) have been largely not-marrying-their-cousins for a while now, and they live in societies in which cousin marriage is fairly taboo. So when white people marry their cousin, it typically is a one generation thing, preventing a whole bunch of snowballing consequences.

I’m sure it seems otherwise on this blog, but I actually don’t have a strong disgust reaction towards cousin marriage. And if we continued to see rates around 1%, I wouldn’t really care.

But some populations have cousin-married at much higher rates, for much longer times. So one generation of cousin marriage for them isn’t the same as one generation of cousin marriage for other people.

It isn’t “too late.” Humans are resilient. We just have to have them stop doing it now.

Since we don’t have the full lineages of everyone, and I don’t want to go by other categories, I’d rather just throw the (very tiny) baby out with the bathwater and ban it for everyone.

Also, a big chunk of the tight family control aspect is cultural transmission. So now I’ll have to actually make that post about cultural transmission (generally) at some point, seeing as some things like FGM are cultural so cultural transmission isn’t all nice things like ethnic foods.

gendpol politics social centrism ban cousin marriage anons asks

uberwarhol

afloweroutofstone

Remember when Republicans pretended they were fine with legal immigration

mitigatedchaos

If they don’t do something, then there is no future for the Republican party.

But don’t worry. In about ten years I’m going to be asking “remember when the democrats made fun of marrying your cousin instead of calling all objections racist?”

Maybe Dems shouldn’t brag about Demographic Destiny™ next time.

afloweroutofstone

“If they don’t do something, then there is no future for the Republican party”

We can hope!

uberwarhol

Hey, we can also hope on the effects of inbreeding

mitigatedchaos

So you’re saying you agree we should ban cousin marriage even though, at least in Britain, it’s most heavily practiced by ethnic minorities?

Because I agree. Marrying your cousin is terrible, doing it for multiple generations is worse, not just with health risks, but also socially as support for extreme patriarchal norms. It doesn’t magically become good just because isolated, low-income, lower class white residents of rural Appalachia do it.

Source: afloweroutofstone politics uncharitable ban cousin marriage

theunitofcaring

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.)

mitigatedchaos

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.

politics violence ban cousin marriage the iron hand

Anonymous asked:

You've made repeated reference to the effects of cousin marriage wrt Muslim immigrants. Could you elaborate on that?

There are a few things to understand, here.

Islam does not require cousin marriage, but it doesn’t prohibit it, either, and as far as I’m aware, the practice predates the religion.

Thresholds matter for social behavior. Something that is okay in small amounts may not be okay in larger amounts.

Here is a map of 2nd-degree-or-closer cousin marriages from Wikipedia.

Notice what a deep blue Pakistan is. Also notice that in most Western countries, the level is fairly low.

Now let’s hop over to the Biological Aspects section of the Wikipedia page.

In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.

Well now, that doesn’t sound so dangerous - wait, what’s this following paragraph?

Repeated consanguineous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.

Oh dear.

A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin.

Oh no. No no no.

Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce “just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.

Well, fuck. This isn’t good.

The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.

Oh, you mean it might be some kind of outside oppression? I bet Whi-

Population subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even for couples with no known genetic relationship.

Oh. Nope, having kids with people who are too genetically similar to each other.

Now remember, we’re talking about information from Wikipedia and the BBC, not Evil Hatefacts from an Evil Hatesite.

So that’s the genetic aspect. So why do they do it?

To keep wealth within the family and stick close to the father’s genetic line.

It isn’t some huge, secret magical diverse cultural benefit that the Middle East has and we don’t. It’s just clannishness. (In fact, I suspect the clannishness is even responsible for some of the issues in their armies.)

Now, the Alt Right seems to think that as a result of this and other issues, all Muslim immigrants must be kicked out of the UK.

That is not necessary. Also it would probably get a lot of people hurt or killed, which is bad. So let’s not do that.

For the Liberals, we should keep in mind that cousin marriage likely promotes clannishness and amoral familism (”my family, right or wrong”), due to increased genetic similarity and insulation from the outer world. In fact, that’s pretty much the purpose of the practice.

Remember that social atomization that was supposed to melt away the religions and make everyone into happy Liberals? That isn’t going to happen if they all marry their cousins, which enables and incentivizes close, repressive, tight control of women, and insular culture.

If we want Islam to chill out and liberalize and soften, like Christianity, and we want the Muslim immigrants to become happy Liberals, then we must ban cousin marriage.

No excuses because “it’s their culture,” or “you’re just a repressive [ethnic majority].” That isn’t helping them.

That’s enabling them. Cousin marriage is bad. It’s self-destructive behavior. It’s other-destructive behavior for the kids, too.

Human beings are resilient. It won’t take that long to start removing the most negative effects, if we start now.

forbidden shadowspeech ban cousin marriage

Anonymous asked:

Do you honestly think there's any chance that your very intellectual approach to politics will ever translate into a movement radical enough to mobilize people to implement it?

“Very intellectual”

Heh.

Could someone start a knock-off of Singapore’s People’s Action Party and get any seats for it?

Not under the current electoral system in America, though we see elements, bits and pieces can sometimes get through, such as Maine adopting a kind of preference voting for the governor’s seat.

The polarization into two parties is the natural state of the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system - you want exactly 51% of the vote in order to have the minimum amount of compromise. This creates a lot of dumb politics.

There is, after all, no place for me in the Republican Party, nor in the Democratic Party.

However, while a unified party powerful enough to take power may not emerge, some ideas, elements, and legislative reforms could get through. And if there are subtle changes to the system, then a more unified platform could become viable.

Some of these elements which escape to be adopted by others may be ideological in nature. Some of my posts on Nationalism have caused some local Rationalists to scratch their heads, wondering “wait, why isn’t that the argument actual American nationalists, in the form of the GOP, actually make?” Or otherwise they simply have never been exposed to an argument for Nationalism that is more than performative flag-waving, by the kind of person who believes that nations are both real and fake at the same time, that can see them as constructs, but still considers them desirable. Also, many may not have been exposed to the idea that open borders may be a pathway to an incompetent yet oppressive world government (gradually, over time).

Likewise, in constructing a kind of Social Centrism, most people do not currently have access to arguments against the most liberal positions (on e.g., polygamy) that are rooted in secular considerations and which also take in mind future developments (e.g., Transhumanism).

There is a question - when GOP members exit their current ideological basis, what will they exit to?

By making these arguments, which then are shared, I create a more defensible ideological position of retreat other than just crossing over entirely to the other side.

The ideal body for my politics right now, given conditions, would be a think tank that could conduct research and produce ready-to-sign legislation along pathways that the existing political parties are not currently setup to defend against (insufficient pre-built memetic barriers - battles they don’t even realize they are or will be fighting). This does not require a mass movement, but rather a fairly good-sized chunk of funding and a core of intelligent and motivated contributors.

On a more mass basis, once a more clear ideology is produced, I think it can be simplified in a way that is more easily communicated…

…though that may still have issues generating sufficient excitement.

anons asks politics national technocracy victory for national technocracy flagpost

argumate

can’t have viciously genocidal warfare between the tribes if you’ve already eradicated all the other tribes, tapping head meme etc.

mitigatedchaos

Dude,

Do you realize what the optimal strategy strategy is under the Collective Intergenerational Justice certain political factions love so much?

Total extermination. There is no giving all the land back if there is no one left to give it back to.

death cw politics

wirehead-wannabe

While this may not be the Perfect Policy That Would End All Badness Forever, a large part of my… not ideal world, but at least “world where things are mostly okay from a system one perspective” is just “competition and violence exist, but everyone is honorable and plays by the rules.” Like, where CEOs do their thing and make as much profit as possible, but are honest negotiators, don’t collaborate to raise prices, etc, and where war exists, but everyone follows the Geneva Conventions.

It’s weird to me that this isn’t a more popular position. In particular, it seems like “bring back honorable warfare, real men don’t torture children or use chemical weapons” should be prime neoreactionary territory, and yet somehow it isn’t.

mitigatedchaos

I think the Neoreactionaries would welcome it - if they thought it were remotely possible.

I certainly find something… hmn, I’m not sure what the right word is for it, but I appreciate that CEOs in Japan still experience shame as an emotion.

And I probably shouldn’t. I probably shouldn’t be satisfied that someone embezzling ten million dollars would throw themselves into the sea, never to return, out of such a deep sense of shame.

Maybe it’s because one of our weapons against embezzlement is the stripping of social status - and if someone has no shame, it’s a sign that their social status hasn’t been stripped and can’t be used against them. And then what is there to stop them embezzling? White collar jail? House arrest? Not very effective.

politics the dark waters death cw

The National Delegation

In case you haven’t noticed recently, democracy has major issues. Every major developed state is strewn with dysfunction and programs that are actively at odds with their intended purposes. Our politicians are either incompetent idiots or shrewd operators working against our interests.

Policies routinely have reasonable stated values, but terrible efficacy.

Organizations such as the RAND Corporation knew the Iraq War would be a lot tougher than the Bush administration said it would be. Policy plans coming out of think tanks seem to be better than the actual policies we get.

If we didn’t know they’d immediately get subverted, we’d almost be better off with think tanks running the country.

Better results are necessarily different results, and systems produce the outcomes they incentivize, so to change the results it is necessary to change the system.

The truth is, it may be possible to get something like think tanks in charge of the government, a hybrid between them and political parties, but we will have to add selection pressure to ensure they work towards correctness.

I propose a new legislature, composed of a new kind of corporate entity, the Delegate Candidate Organization (DCO).

Every three years, at election time, each voter delegates their vote to a DCO. The top 50 Delegate Candidate Organizations then form the legislature, becoming that term’s Delegate Organizations. This legislature is known as the National Delegation.

In a second election, those DCOs that did not make the cut delegate their votes to members of the top 50.

(In an optional alternative, the vote could be split between DCOs by categories by voters, allowing a truly innovative level of representation. Bills would have to pass on all categories to pass, and the tax category would determine how funding is obtained, but not total expenditures. Sadly, this is probably too complex for typical voters.)

A Delegate Candidate Organization receives its funding exclusively from the State. For each delegated vote it receives, the DCO receives $5 in annual funding, and an additional $5 times its percentile standing in a legislative outcome prediction market.

(That might sound like a lot. America has around 300 million people, so you could potentially be looking at three billion dollars. I would answer that the 2016 Presidential election cost $2.6 billion by itself, and that money had to come from somewhere and is already influencing our political process. The size of the US economy is $18,570 billion dollars. The real question is whether better policy by the DCOs could improve that by 0.016% or more, which would make the National Delegation pay for itself. I believe that it would.)

The key factor that makes DCOs behave more like think tanks is that a significant chunk of their funding depends on correctly estimating the outcomes of legislation. What keeps them honest? First, competition with other DCOs that will pressure them against spoiling the metrics. Second, voters.

When a piece of legislation is to be passed, DCOs make predictions on outcomes and bet on them in a virtual currency called Credibility Score (or just “Cred”). Each outcome must be represented by a basket of multiple metrics, to prevent min-maxing.

This structure allows us to build a differentiation between a policy’s values and its efficacy. Previous discourse has often viewed policy as solely a matter of efficacy, but of course in practice people have different preferences and are not a unified mass just waiting for enlightenment into [your political ideology]. Preserving the values component (in part through voting) also allows bits of efficacy that have slipped through to be represented on the other side of the equation.

The bets serve two purposes. The first is to reward policymakers that are actively effective at achieving their stated objectives, and punish policymakers that are too unaligned with reality. The second is to effectively tell voters what the plans will actually do, not just wishy washy language pols want people to hear.

“This bill will reduce gun crime.”
“By how much?”
“Uh… a, uh, lot.”

Not only can the DCO specify what its % estimate for a decrease in gun crime is, but it can also communicate its level of certainty - by how much it bets on the outcome as a percentage of its current Cred reserves, data that can be mined by political scientists and journalists.

DCOs must be able to amend predictions when new legislation is passed. A court will also be required to punish those who tamper with metrics, and resolve other disputes. The details of that are a challenge in themselves, but should be feasible to work out.

Each DO has as many votes in the legislature as have been delegated to it. A majority is required to pass legislation.

The accumulated Credibility Score/Cred across all bets is used to determine the percentile standing of all DCOs, used to determine funding (as above). Percentile standing is listed on the ballot next to the DCO’s name, but to simplify things for voters, DCOs are listed in the order of votes received in the previous election.

Practical experiments will be necessary to assess the viability of this model, but I have high hopes for it. If we want to advance as a civilization, then we must develop new organizational technologies.

politics policy victory for national technocracy national technocracy flagpost longpost the national delegation

ranma-official

theonion:
“SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass....

Source: theonion queue

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

More you might like

The National Delegation