1.5M ratings
277k ratings

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

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna

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.

politics a previous era the iron hand
theunitofcaring
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
argumate
ozymandias271

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

argumate

if you vote for the Human Rights Abuses Are Bad party then people will die

mitigatedchaos

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.

Source: cptsdcarlosdevil politics the iron hand
aeondeug

It is a well-documented fact that by the age of 5 monolingual White children will have heard 30 million fewer words in languages other than English than bilingual children of color. In addition, they will have had a complete lack of exposure to the richness of non-standardized varieties of English that characterize the homes of many children of color. This language gap increases the longer these children are in school. The question is what causes this language gap and what can be done to address it?

The major cause of this language gap is the failure of monolingual White communities to successfully assimilate into the multilingual and multidialectal mainstream. The continued existence of White ethnic enclaves persists despite concerted efforts to integrate White communities into the multiracial mainstream since the 1960s. In these linguistically isolated enclaves it is possible to go for days without interacting with anybody who does not speak Standardized American English providing little incentive for their inhabitants to adapt to the multilingual and multidialectal nature of  US society.

This linguistic isolation has a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of monolingual White children. This is because linguistically isolated households lack the rich translanguaging practices that are found in bilingual households and the elaborate style-shifting that occurs in bidialectal households. This leaves monolingual White children without a strong metalinguistic basis for language learning. As a result, many of these monolingual White children lack the school-readiness skills needed for foreign language learning and graduate from school having mastered nothing but Standardized American English leaving them ill-equipped to engage in intercultural communication.

What if we talked about monolingual White children the way we talk about low-income children of color?

Excerpt from a satirical blog post from The Educational Linguist that makes a good point about which language skills we value as a society and the problems with talking about a “language gap”

(via lingrix)

[someone linked this to me]


Suppose we took this seriously - that we decided monolingual white children weren’t gaining a sufficient intuitive understanding of language as a generalized concept, because their households were too monolingual.

What, then, could be done about it?

Children across America are made to learn foreign languages throughout their schooling, but it rarely sticks.  Why?

Insufficient density.

Quite simply, there just aren’t enough speakers of the language per population in a given area to support conversing with it regularly.  It becomes useless, and the brain does what it always does with information that doesn’t get used - purge it.

Any response focused on a great diversity of languages, then, would be ineffective.  There are simply too many different languages.  If we limit instruction to only those languages with at least one million speakers, and keep children in school eight hours per day, each language will have just over one minute of instruction devoted to it.

To truly grasp the idea of language on a deeper conceptual level, fluency and depth of understanding would be required.

To create the number of speakers required to sustain fluency, then, we must pick one second language per geographic area, then make it mandatory in school.

I propose this be done at the regional level.

Mandarin Chinese or Japanese for the West Coast.  German for the Midwest.  French for the East Coast and New England.  Spanish for the South and Southwest.

Not only will this bring about regional cultural differentiation which will increase the cultural diversity of America and support for later Regional Federalism (instrumental for unification with Canada and Mexico to form the North American Union and ensure continued dominance into the late 21st century), but it will add truly exciting new slang to the language.

Yes, the resulting drift will make old documents harder to understand, but the insistent descriptivists have already thrown that out the window as unimportant, so why stop there?

Source: allthingslinguistic politics policy like half shtpost maybe for bonus points use Cherokee instead of spanish
ranma-official
diebrarian:
“ brainstatic:
“I swear to god he has some kind of ancient Egyptian curse. There is always, always one of these whenever something happens. He stole an amulet from a tomb or some shit.
”
it’s real ”
When you plunder the tomb of an ancient...
brainstatic

I swear to god he has some kind of ancient Egyptian curse. There is always, always one of these whenever something happens. He stole an amulet from a tomb or some shit. 

diebrarian

it’s real

mitigatedchaos

When you plunder the tomb of an ancient social media magnate from 2003, searching through the abandoned CRT monitors and tangles of ethernet cables, accidentally activating an artifact that will allow you to use social media to gain incredible power, but at a terrible price.

The pact is sealed.  Your tweets shall be written in blood.

Source: brainstatic politics shtpost trump
invertedporcupine
invertedporcupine

Regarding some recent political discourse…

I’ve seen some people using the words “centrist” and “moderate” interchangeably, but I view them very differently.

To me, a centrist is someone who determines the ideal political positions via triangulation.  I view this very negatively, both because it has no good ethical or meta-ethical underpinning, and because it is naive, being both easily gamed by extremists pushing on the Overton window and, in fact, adding additional incentives for extremists to be even more extreme, for that reason.

A moderate, but contrast, is to me more what “conservative” (as opposed to “reactionary” was supposed to mean, but has failed to mean in practice) – favoring gradual rather than revolutionary change to avoid major downside risks.

I also think less moderate people incorrectly assume that their exact constellation of issues are inherent in the nature of the universe rather than contingent on the nature of society, and conclude that anyone who doesn’t share all of the most left/right possible positions just hasn’t thought it through enough and is being in consistent.  It’s quite possible to hold a moderate mix of views for well thought out reasons, consistent with a philosophical underipinning; it’s just that philosophy is something other than superficial leftism/rightism.

invertedporcupine

@mitigatedchaos @ranma-official

mitigatedchaos

I see “centrist” not as a label of the method of finding policy, but as a label for anyone who has positions near the center, regardless of how they got there.

Because, in practice, that is how the word is used.  You will be accused of being a Clueless Triangulator or wishy-washer regardless of whether you ever actually triangulate.

politics
slartibartfastibast
slartibartfastibast:
“ slartibartfastibast:
“Ranma, you’re sounding very “Liberals get the bullet too” here.
”
Wait. I think I missed a layer. Explain this, @ranma-official. Centrists view the compass as a peak to be conquered. But it’s not clearly...
slartibartfastibast

Ranma, you’re sounding very “Liberals get the bullet too” here.

slartibartfastibast

Wait. I think I missed a layer. Explain this, @ranma-official. Centrists view the compass as a peak to be conquered. But it’s not clearly stating whether that is silly or not. It just is. Is this an apolitical political compass meme? That seems oxymoronic, but I guess it’s allowed because of the twitter meta.

mitigatedchaos

No no, this is actually about centrists feeling superior to others + reframing all those “lol dumb centrists” memes. While simultaneously attacking centrists for feeling superior, it also presents the idea that they could believe it because they think it’s legit. Well, also a mountain to conquer, but isn’t that always the case in politics?

Source: ithelpstodream politics