Also, when it comes to race and politics in this country, I would like to point out that we have not tried having social policy that does not actually suck.
You mean learning history affects your present worldview?
Gonna be honest here - I no longer trust calls for “inclusiveness” and “diversity” from anyone who isn’t at least Rationalist-Adjacent.
One cannot trust, for instance, that people won’t attempt to overwrite the race of ancient Egyptians (which varied over time, but included people that look a lot like people there now, Greeks, etc) with whatever they prefer.
To clarify, we have a post arguing they were all black until the 7th century, and another post apparently arguing that the Egyptians were, uh, slavs or something. I won’t claim to be an expert on it, though - I’ve just noticed that this has long been a point of contention.
One can’t trust the /pol/acks either, of course, and whoever posted an image of contemporary Macedonia as what Egyptians looked like.
…Which is why I specified the rat-adjs, since IME rats/adjs tend to operate in good faith usually and are less likely to treat such issues as a political football to win points with. (Although I don’t see them discussing Ancient Egyptian migrations much, admittedly.)
Actually, it occurs to me…
Without that Irish and Italian immigration, would there be a generic “white” identity in America?
The people who complain about things like a female doctor who or female Jedi or whatever almost always swear up and down that they don’t mind the idea of a woman in that role, but then say they have a problem with that particular instance because they think it’s “pandering” or “cheap” or “just for brownie points” or “politically correct”
So when exactly is it not going to be those things? If they say there’s a time and place they’d be fine with it, then when and where? Why does it never seem to come?
Remember that post about how a black reverse Indiana Jones would be great because it would “piss off white guys”?
They know it’s just culture war to take over stuff they currently have for its symbolic value.
If it weren’t just culture war, then it would be about the creation of new media, new stories, rather than insisting “nope, this guy looks too much like you, and you oppress people just by existing, so he must be removed.”
There is already a good test case to differentiate.
Look for people who objected to the idea of a black stormtrooper as a main character in the new Star Wars. As a new Star Wars movie, it wasn’t replacing anyone from the previous movies, therefore you can assume more bad faith of the people who were against having Finn there. (Also the movie is actually enjoyable in itself and the acting was fine.)
Also, they know this sort of stuff only goes one way.
Also also, recall that criticism of the new Ghostbusters that flopped was, to a degree, socially prohibited because it was “girl power!”. But it still flopped. Why wouldn’t a lot of people be suspicious?
Anonymous asked:
Worth noting regarding Trump border wall that there is already a fence pretty much everywhere fence would be useful. I suspect Trump will scale back what was promised from the best wall you've ever seen to fence and natural barriers. Then he can declare victory without doing anything since apparently people who don't live near the border don't realize there is already a ton of fencing.
argumate answered:
luckily policy success or failure has no relation to politics anyway
This will sound weird, but a lot of Trumpers don’t actually care about the wall, per se.
The Trump administration is looking to reduce and change legal immigration, in some ways making it more like it has been previously or like other countries. (Immigration levels have not always been this high in America.)
This makes a lot of sense from a “keep Republicans able to get elected over the next five decades” perspective, as, as we all know, Republican outreach to other minority races has mostly flopped. Also, views change the more generations that immigrants are in the country. (I talk about them flipping the Asians, but it’s a bit harder than flipping the Irish since there is a greater visual difference with whites, and so there are limits to how far racism will dissolve.)
The Democrats were celebrating an inevitable demographic tide that would deliver them permanent electoral majority. However, that tide is not actually inevitable. On some level, Trumpers can probably sense that the plan is to replace or outnumber them, but America does have immigration as part of its national mythos so this is not as well-supported.
The Wall is, to a degree, just a hammy metaphor for actually enforcing immigration law, and to a lesser degree, changing immigration rules. If he changes immigration / enforces immigration law in other ways, his voters will be satisfied even without him actually building it.
Anonymous asked:
Id be more into "race realism" if it wasn't wishful thinking for retards who don't study genetics
mutant-aesthetic answered:
This is what lovecraft thought of hitler
“What I’m saying is that there are some genetic differences in lactase persistence that are correlated with ancestral populations.”
“So you’re saying we should kill all the unmilkdrinkers? I think we should kill the unmilkdrinkers.”
“No, don’t be ridic-”
“Raise up an army and push them all off the continent.”
“It isn’t even a 1:1 correlation!”
“Hah, that’s what the unmilkdrinkers want you to think!”
Self reblogging to add a thing I found:
http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-208/feature-malcolm-harris/
The account @Anti_Racism_Dog didn’t last long. Twitter suspended it quickly, a fate reserved only for the most aggressive, abusive and hateful users. What could a dog – an anti-racist one, at that – do to deserve it? @Anti_Racism_Dog had one real function: to bark at racist speech on Twitter. The account responded to tweets it deemed racist with the simple response ‘bark bark bark!’ Sometimes it would send wags to supporters but that was pretty much it.
For the short time it lasted, it was amazing to watch how people reacted to @Anti_Racism_Dog. The account would respond mostly to what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva would call ‘colour-blind racism’, that is, racisms that are generally right-libertarian in orientation and justified through appeals to supposedly objective discourses like science and statistics. It’s a notoriously insidious white-supremacist ideology, a virulent strain evolved specifically to resist anti-racist language. Colour-blind racism defends itself by appeals to neutrality and meritocracy, accusing its adversaries of being ‘the real racists’. Although its moves are predictable, they’re hard to combat rhetorically since they’re able to ingest the conventional opposition scripts. Colour-blind racists feed on good-faith debate, and engaging with them, especially online, is almost always futile. But when they’re barked at by a dog, one whose only quality is anti-racism, they flip the fuck out. They demand to be engaged in debate (‘Tell me how what I said was racist!’) or appeal to objective definitions (‘The dictionary says racist means X, therefore nothing I said was racist’), but @Anti_Racism_Dog just barks.
@Anti_Racism_Dog inverted the usual balance of energy in online dialogs about race. Precisely because the dominant global discourse is white-supremacist, it is rhetorically easier to make a racist argument than an anti-racist one. Look at almost any comment thread or discussion board about race and you can see anti-racists working laboriously to be convincing and to play on their opponents’ ‘logical’ turf, and racists repeating the same simple lines they were taught (‘I didn’t own slaves’, ‘I’m just stating the facts’, ‘The Irish were persecuted too’, etc.) ‘Trolling’ as a certain kind of internet harassment is tied to time: the successful troll expends much less time and energy on the interaction than their targets do. It’s the most micro of micro-politics, an interpersonal tug of war for the only thing that matters. But have you ever played tug of war with a dog?
A true troll doesn’t have a position to protect because to establish one would leave it vulnerable to attack, and playing defence takes time. @Anti_Racism_Dog, by fully assuming the persona of an animal, was invulnerable to counter-attack. You can’t explain yourself to a dog and you look like an idiot trying. The only way to win is not to play but this is the colour-blind racist’s Achilles Heel: they’re compelled to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It’s the anti-racist argument that gives them content; theirs is an ideology that’s in large part a list of counter-arguments. After all, white-supremacists are already winning – their task now is to keep the same racist structures in place while making plausibly colour-blind arguments against dismantling them. @Anti_Racism_Dog was empty of anything other than accusation and so left its targets sputtering.
The account served a second purpose: as a sort of anti-racist hunting dog. @Anti_Racism_Dog quickly attracted a lot of like-minded followers who understood the dynamics at play. Whenever it would start barking at another user, this was a cue to the dog’s followers to troll the offender as well. There’s only so much one dog can do alone. Colour-blind racism is particularly dangerous because it isn’t immediately visible as such. It provokes good-faith discussion from liberals about what counts as racism, muddying the water. But @Anti_Racism_Dog’s strategy draws new lines about what constitutes acceptable discourse on race, placing colour-blind racists on the other side by speaking to them like an animal. What would be taken as totally insane in flesh space can be infuriatingly clever online.
THIS ARTICLE HAS TEETH
I WANT ANTI RACISM DOG BACK
fuck twitter Im going to go delete mine
useless piece of shit it is
Ngl, this makes me feel a lot better about the ridiculous amount of time I spend tryin to counter racist bullshit in comments sections.
Bark at racists online 2k17
This is amazing. I want something like this, but it barks completely at random, and when you reply to it, somebody else automatically berates you for not listening to it and believing properly.
Maybe this has already happened.
The obvious exploit here is to accuse anti-racism-dog of classism/sexism/antisemitism/ageism/ableism or literally anything else. Anti-semitism-dog cannot defend itself.
Maybe do it in a friendly-reminder-callout-uwu way and let people know that the guy behing anti-racism-dog is 41 years old, has poor grooming, jerks off to anime titties, ships two underage characters, or draws problematic fanart.
If anti-racism-dog works, it will make the discourse worse, give its enemies ammunition, and eventually eat itself.
If it does not work, all it does is signal boost and shametweet people on twitter, use its follower base to incite harassment against its targets, embroils its follower base in exactly the kind of argument they want to avoid, and make their enemies look sane in comparison.
Dear OP,
My assessment of the validity of online racism accusations has just decreased. Again. If it keeps getting worse because of people like OP and that twitter account, it may eventually flip negative.
That is a bad thing, OP. Literal Richard Spencer himself said that he can openly call himself a Nazi because so many people throw around the term willy-nilly that no one thinks it means real Nazis anymore. Abusing terms destroys them. Some of those terms actually have value.
One antibiotic resistant super-bacteria has already been created. And by that, I mean that an Orange Internet Meme has been elected President.
These actions have consequences.
Sincerely,
Mitigated Chaos