The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Virtual Safe Spaces
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From R-I, percentages who blocked a “family member or close friend on social media for reasons related to” the 2016 presidential election:

It’s conceivable that non-white Trump supporters have taken even more abuse from their social circles than white Trump supporters have. That may go some way in explaining that high figure. Or it could be that in The Current Year white non-leftists tend to be the most intellectually tolerant people of all, while white leftists are the least so.

One thing that clearly does not bode well for the prospect of some sort of future national reunification is how blocking those with differing views from one’s own is so strongly inversely correlated with age. This is not merely a consequence of younger people leaning more Democrat than older ones, either (a trend that is weakening significantly anyway)–the figures are virtually identical among Clinton and Trump voters under the age of 35. Political dissolution is on the horizon.

 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
54 Comments to "Virtual Safe Spaces"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. 216 says:

    A revealed preference that shows conservatives are less willing to self-segregate.

    The Right has not lost its taste for argumentation, versus community building.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  2. Twinkie says:

    It’s conceivable that non-white Trump supporters have taken even more abuse from their social circles than white Trump supporters have.

    This is certainly true in my case. My white godparents who are establishment Republicans were pretty aghast, and I heard some strong words. They have come around a bit and I suspect they will support Trump next time, but the relations are still a bit stiff.

    I don’t get this whole blocking thing, though, as I do not use any social media aside from having an unused Facebook account I got to watch a free UFC card online once.

    Maybe the older folks have lower blocking rate, because they don’t know how to use that feature. 🙂

    I’m close to 50 now, and I don’t know how to use all the features on my iPad, forget about my in-laws and mother who are in their late 70’s/early 80’s. One of the funniest memories about my MIL from years and years ago is helping her when she ran out of real estate for her mouse and she was adding flat furniture to the right of her desk so she could move her mouse further right. I lifted up the mouse and repositioned it leftward, and we all had a good laugh about it. She was about my current age back then. When I see younger people deftly using their phones/tablets and all the apps, I think back to how my MIL must have felt back then.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
  3. Tyrion 2 says:

    Why are progressive white millennials the least tolerant of disagreement?

    Why are white Republicans the most tolerant?

    Cynically, one might argue that those with their hands on the levers of cultural power are not incentivised to care for tolerance.

    I’d say that it is deeper and it is instead that those who possess intellectual virtues, which include tolerance of disagreement, tend to have better ideas. This means, for young white people, that if they are open to ideas they won’t end up with those that involve such obvious self harm as the progressive political programme.

    Those who go gathering in the woods and refuse engage with other people will likely end up eating poison fruit.

    In other words, if you’re a white, millenial progressive then your politics are downstream of your intolerance.

    But then I would prefer this explanation to the first as it is gratifying. Still, it is probably a bit of both.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  4. @216

    “A revealed preference that shows conservatives are less willing to self-segregate.”

    Less willing, or afraid of the consequences of doing so? Freedom of association has been outlawed for whites.

    • Replies: @iffen
  5. iffen says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Freedom of association has been outlawed for whites.

    Only if you try to use “the law,” which belongs to all citizens, in the enforcement of your freedom of association.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  6. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    cuckservatives think this is a matter of discovering truth leftist have been brainwashed into a cult they know the truth and everyone else is evil and as soon as they can they will kill the evil in the meantime they will demand free shit from them
    cuckservatives can not understand that mug enlightenment a far leftist revolution did not actually work but for a short period of time among extraordinary white adult men of means and good character that the experiment failed to the extent the gentlemen’s agreement was expanded out, and of course the results of the failed expansion lagged a bit and the jews cleverly began to propose that the solution to failed leftist expansion was further leftist expansion and since the majority was now pretty stupid female and outsiders with no affinity for the cause the nation etc they were fine with more free shit from whitey, in fact whitey on the moon was when it went from a leaning slide to a total collapse the 60s were not the cause they were the collapse of what jefferson and runnymede wrought. since then we have lived in an occupied nation zog pretty much works think of the cucks as vichy and you about have it.they are not giving it all back because you memed some frogs or put a chart up on your blog they mean to kill you literally withing a decade or so we will have camps. Yet even the most allegedly red pilled is not willing to fight a real war they are getting on the cattle cars

  7. @iffen

    What you stated makes no sense.

    • Replies: @iffen
  8. @Twinkie

    One of the funniest memories about my MIL from years and years ago is helping her when she ran out of real estate for her mouse and she was adding flat furniture to the right of her desk so she could move her mouse further right.

    There was actually a Dilbert strip about that many years ago with the Pointy-Haired Boss filling the role of your mother-in-law. 🙂

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  9. Twinkie says:
    @Cloudbuster

    There was actually a Dilbert strip about that many years ago with the Pointy-Haired Boss filling the role of your mother-in-law. 🙂

    No way! Do you have a link or know a way to find it? It’d be a big hit during my next visit with the in-laws.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  10. Asagirian says: • Website

    The sheer idiocy. If anything, Nazi Germany was the biggest smasher of walls. Just ask the Czechs, Poles, Greeks, French, Norwegians, and Russians. Nazi Germany practiced imperialism in Europe. It invaded other European nations like UK and France invaded other parts of the world.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  11. To further what Twinkie wrote above*, it’s not just that the older people are not using the features, but are they even using Facebook, Twitter, and all that AT ALL? You can’t block people if you’re not even a participant. I’m young enough to do pretty well with computers and some of the Artificial Stupidity**, but I’ve never purposefully been on Facebook and don’t have a Tweet Transmitter anywhere, and don’t even know where to get one (Radio Shack, excuse me, “The Shack”?).

    If you want to “friend” me, call me up. I block people by not calling them back for a few years – easy, peasy.

    What should my answer be if I am ever polled on this question, A.E.? “Yes”, as in, I’ve blocked EVERYBODY by not joining or “No”, I’ve never blocked anyone, with the same explanation. Polls are hard.

    .

    * and funny story, BTW!

    ** H/T to John Derbyshire for this term.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  12. iffen says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    What you stated makes no sense.

    If you decide to move, you can check out the neighborhood and only move if there are no undesirables. You can’t collude with the like-minded and pass a whites only residency law.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  13. @Asagirian

    Impressive that the Nazis were able to build a wall 15 years after their regime collapsed!

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  14. @Achmed E. Newman

    The poll question excludes people who do not use social media, so that takes away some of your explanation.

    Not all of it though, admittedly. I suspect the average 25 yo who uses social media uses it a lot more than the average 65 yo who uses social media does and the poll doesn’t attempt to control for that.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  15. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    If you decide to move, you can check out the neighborhood and only move if there are no undesirables. You can’t collude with the like-minded and pass a whites only residency law.

    This is an unreasonably narrow conception of freedom of association, which means the freedom to exclude or nothing at all.

    • Replies: @iffen
  16. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    This is an unreasonably narrow conception of freedom of association

    It is limited, but every right has to be balanced against other rights.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
  17. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    It is limited, but every right has to be balanced against other rights.

    The question is this: why is it invariably White rights that must yield?

    And on what basis do you determine that non-whites have a right to White people?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @AndrewR
    , @Bill Jones
  18. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    They built three actually. One on their lunar base, one in Antarctica and one in the inner earth.

  19. Jay Fink says:

    I accepted a FB friend request from someone I worked with in 1989 and haven’t talked to or thought of since. To my horror he has Trump derangement syndrome and continuously posts about how much he hates Trump. I am too nice to block or unfriend anybody but maybe I should reply to his posts and defend Trump so he can block me. Although just my luck he is older than the demographic that frequently blocks.

    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
  20. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    The question is this: why is it invariably White rights that must yield?

    Well, is should be the same for all races. No race should be able to pass laws that exclude residency to members of another race. Although, the Supreme Court can racially gerrymander congressional districts but Republicans can’t, so it’s not a sure thing.

    And on what basis do you determine that non-whites have a right to White people?

    I don’t. I just say that you can’t use the law to accomplish exclusion. On that subject, I definitely disagree with federal housing regulations that force cities and counties to place public housing in certain areas in an attempt to achieve some sort of integration.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
  21. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    I don’t. I just say that you can’t use the law to accomplish exclusion.

    That makes no sense. If you say, you can’t legally exclude non-whites, you’re saying non-whites have a right to everything Whites create, which is the same assaying Whites are not allowed to keep what they create.
    Also:

    Immigration restriction?

    Restrictive covenants?

    • Replies: @iffen
  22. @iffen

    “It is limited, but every right has to be balanced against other rights.”

    False. Individual rights are such that they do not infringe upon anyone else’s individual rights.

  23. AndrewR says:
    @Rosie

    Where’s my sandwich, woman?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  24. @iffen

    “No race should be able to pass laws that exclude residency to members of another race. ”

    Again, this is false. The only entity that should not be able to make racial exclusions is a government upon its citizens. That would be equal protection under the law. A private organization, such as the boy scouts or a homeowner’s association should be able to create rules within its organization that specify who is allowed and who isn’t. That is freedom of association.

    The common misconception regarding the constitution is that it was designed to prohibit discrimination among private citizens. It’s not.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @iffen
  25. Speaking of virtual safe spaces, now that you’ve been assimilated into the Borg: subsumed into the Unziverse, your commentariat has certainly expanded, any counter-comment about its quality; warp, weft (or do you prefer woof?), weight, hand and wickedness ?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  26. @Rosie

    Rosie, I believe your instincts are right.

    There’s an astonishing number of people who believe that they have a right to everything you have, including yourself.

    A few months ago someone mentioned a quote, whose validity I do not know, by the first black Mayor of Atlanta (Jackson?) who said, in response to claims that his policies would lead to white flight, “Well, we’ll follow you.”

    If as seems likely the US dissolves along largely racial lines, the white States will have to enforce immigration policies that will be roundly condemned as racist or the whole sorry mess will start again.

    The Blacks and Jews are alike in that membership of their racial group is their most important identifier and both need a white civilization to prey upon.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  27. @Audacious Epigone

    Ahaaa, thanks for the correction. I didn’t read the title closely enough. Like you say, though, the Golden Girls might think reading their email messages weekly makes them social media users.

  28. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Right, the US Constitution specifies people be treated equally under the law, as in by the Federal Gov’t, in court, etc. BTW, that completely rules out Affirmative Action.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
  29. @Bill Jones

    Wider variety, more conversations among commenters–due in no small part to Ron’s superb commenting system. Fewer Jewish commenters than I had at the old blog, though. More than one of them said he would regrettably not follow me here to UR.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
  30. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    Immigration restriction?

    The country has a sovereign right to exclude immigrants for any reason or no reason. I would like to have an immediate immigration hiatus (except for Einsteins and beauty queens) that lasts until we get our economic and political problems halfway sorted out.

    Restrictive covenants?

    Covered already.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  31. iffen says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    That would be equal protection under the law.

    Equal protection under the law means that you cannot use our law to exclude someone of another race. You cannot step outside of the law and use it as your own to exclude someone to whom the law also belongs.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
    — Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

    Fair Housing Act
    The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of:
    race or color
    religion
    sex
    national origin
    familial status, or
    disability.

    There is nothing that prevents you from working to change the Constitution and civil rights legislation. Until such changes are made exclusion from housing based on race is illegal.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  32. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    More than one of them said he would regrettably not follow me here to UR.

    Seems like this is a bit of an impediment to your plan to get the populace in and get’em woke.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  33. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    The country has a sovereign right to exclude immigrants for any reason or no reason.

    That doesn’t matter when you’ve already conceded to the premise that it’s immoral to discriminate.

    • Replies: @iffen
  34. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    That doesn’t matter when you’ve already conceded to the premise that it’s immoral to discriminate.

    Well, that’s true, and it explains the Borg’s tizzy over Trump actually trying to enforce the immigration laws.

  35. More than one of them said he would regrettably not follow me here to UR.

    Too much truth telling? Too many N-Bombs? For the relatively small bit of ‘offensive language, there’s a huge catalog of, from my puny intellectual standpoint, brilliant commentary from the peanut gallery. Greatest peanut gallery ever. The newspapers, Boston Globe, WashPost, the Herald, they all moderate, erase and ban anything to the Right of Pelosi, who is looking stangely moderate.. They have created an echo chamber. Take a detour from the Narrative, you’re called Putin-Bitch by twenty people.

    For your own articles, you get to moderate don’t you, A-Epi? Your friends and fellow Jews are stopping in, even if they don’t dip their toe into discussions.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  36. @iffen

    It’s pretty much a given that the 1964 Civil Rights act is unconstitutional. This is like, remedial political discussion 101. In fact CRA 1964 is the piece of legislation that outlawed freedom of association as we knew it. No coincidence you would use it to support your position against FoA, and it’s existence doesn’t provide you with any moral high ground either, commissar.

    I’m guessing if we were debating about legislative representation in 1850 you’d be citing the 3/5ths Compromise. Can’t argue against it! It’s “the law”!

    • Replies: @iffen
  37. @Audacious Epigone

    The “Blogger” commenting format is clunky and confusing. I think I commented at your old place once.

  38. iffen says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    It’s pretty much a given that the 1964 Civil Rights act is unconstitutional.

    Well, that changes everything. I must have been misinformed.

    Can’t argue against it! It’s “the law”!

    Ulysses Everett McGill: It ain’t the law!
    Sheriff Cooley: The law? The law is a human institution.

  39. @iffen

    Ron is a… controversial figure among other Jews.

    I have nothing but positive things to say about him, though, and that opinion has only intensified since coming here. He is a beacon for free speech, open intellectual inquiry, and candid expression in a virtual world where dark storm clouds continue to gather on the horizon.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @iffen
  40. @Jim Christian

    Well said. Yes, and I suppose everyone who moderates attempts to justify it. My intention really is to not remove anything value-adding. It’s the equivalent of saying to a group of people gathered in my living room that everything is on the table to talk about, but no dropping f-bombs because my kids are reading in their rooms upstairs.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
  41. @Jay Fink

    Maybe you could take it as an opportunity to see how far you can take him, to employ patience and strategy to grind up that red pill and put it in their food. Make intellectually honest concessions re Trump (that really shouldn’t be difficult to do at all), don’t take the bait of memes and histrionics, and make rueful “asides” that lead to facts to introduce and larger points that you seek to make. Speak tangentially and not directly if needed to get to the discussion you want to have, and anticipate responses, yours then theirs and then yours again like a game of chess where part of the game is to keep the other player from throwing the board and pieces on the ground. Look at it as an opportunity to practice being effective. Even though they may prove to be a NPC (non-playable character) who is no longer capable of being intellectually honest, then so what, at least you learn from the process.

  42. Twinkie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Thank you. That is pretty close to what happened!

  43. anon[123] • Disclaimer says:

    “Why are progressive white millennials the least tolerant of disagreement? Why are white Republicans the most tolerant?”

    The explanation derives from an understanding of what produces the psychology of the two factions. Progressive beliefs and actions are derived from a sense of moral superiority. They are right (and moral) and those who disagree with them are not merely wrong but immoral and even deserving of punishment. White republicans, on the other hand, are more even handed. What influences them is the belief that they are technically correct about a course of action; they don’t believe their opponents are immoral, just mistaken. Also, white Republicans are more family and kin-oriented, so they are less likely to shun a valuable genetic relative over political disagreements. Progressive Leftists are highly individualistic and share little sense of loyalty to others, making it very easy to discard even family. You see this in the fact that white Republicans have much higher birth rates than progressive white millennials. Add in white self-hate being linked to morality in modern society, and you’ll have a good explanation for their behavior. Also maybe throw in differential mental illness and psychopathy (or at least Machiavellian) rates between the two groups, and you’ll get the rest of your explanation.

    If you think about it, this explains the radical left’s actions throughout much of history: slavery was immoral and dissenters deserved to be destroyed as a result rather than bargained with, avoiding a whole sale slaughter; Hitler was evil, so wiping Dresden from the map was okay; nuking Nagasaki was wrong because it was done by whites against non-whites (self-hate); American Indians were savages who lacked enlightenment, so it was okay to murder them (some of the biggest Union supporters of the Civil War and opponents of slavery were radically in favor of killing natives); the French aristocracy were portrayed as immoral, so it was okay for Robespierre to reign down the Terror on dissenters; …

    I think this explanation is in the right ballpark. Jonathan Haidt talks about this in his book “The Righteous Mind.” I would recommend you check it out as it is highly informative. My interpretation of the book’s contents is that the Left cannot ever be reasoned with but must be destroyed because, if given power, they will excuse great crimes against us heretics as being morally correct (this explains the great brutality of the Soviet communists); thus, they should not be negotiated with but driven from power, publicly shunned, and removed from future populations through differential birthrates.

    As an aside, I’ll note that conservatives lost the culture wars because humans are fundamentally emotionally-driven moralists, not computers that calculate fairness or optimal solutions. In that light, the radical left tactic of shaming opponents and framing them as immoral, justifying social ostracism of them, is the superior tactic. I can say that I’ve begun to return the favor after realizing this. I’ve muted certain family members and dissociated from anyone linked to the radical left on social media.

  44. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    He is a beacon for free speech, open intellectual inquiry, and candid expression

    This is admirable, as is the archiving of other publications and books, and I do appreciate what he is doing, but couldn’t the same be accomplished without the hard core racists and jew-haters on board?

    I am a partisan and I do not hide it. I look at free speech and intellectual inquiry through the lens of “what will it do to save my country.” Obviously, I find your blog informative and valuable, but I have trepidation that you are pushing too hard for secession and dissolution and are trying to black-pill people on liberal democracy and electoral reform and solutions. We can see that many commenters push the idea that all is lost on the electoral front and “we” have no other options but …

    However, looking at your own material shows that we only need a few % here or there and we could stay afloat for a while longer which will give us more time to find more stable solutions.

  45. @iffen

    Iffen, that’s the point of A.E.’s praise of Ron Unz. He may not particularly like the Jew-haters, but they may still make good points, and even if they don’t, others will have the confidence to write what they really want to write.

    Bloody hell (as they say), Unz has got pure flat-out, Mao/Stalin-sack-hanging Commies, not just commenting, but writing articles here! I don’t know if Mr. Unz agrees with those idiots in any way, but it sure is a “Controversial Perspective”, no matter how intensely stupid.

    However, looking at your own material shows that we only need a few % here or there and we could stay afloat for a while longer which will give us more time to find more stable solutions.

    Demographic numbers don’t lie – we are not voting our way out of this one. You’d be better off getting used to that fact, rather than just calling it “black-pilling”.

    One more thing – I never agreed with Mr. Unz’s well-reasoned defense of illegal alien “low” criminality levels, but no matter how frustrated he gets with the arguments, I’ve not seen him ban anybody, which is very admirable. (Yeah, he’ll put a note in, in bold, when a commenter just keeps going on-and-on, off the subject.)

    • Replies: @iffen
  46. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Iffen, that’s the point of A.E.’s praise of Ron Unz.

    Answer this question.

    but couldn’t the same be accomplished without the hard core racists and jew-haters on board?

    I don’t know if Mr. Unz agrees with those idiots in any way, but it sure is a “Controversial Perspective”, no matter how intensely stupid.

    Right, he’s pretty clear that he doesn’t agree with a lot of what he publishes here, but he’s not very clear on what he does agree with other than some of the conspiracies.

    Demographic numbers don’t lie – we are not voting our way out of this one. You’d be better off getting used to that fact, rather than just calling it “black-pilling”.

    Disagree

    One more thing – I never agreed with Mr. Unz’s well-reasoned defense of illegal alien “low” criminality levels…

    Me neither, nor with the idea that mestizos will be the new Jews … whatever.

  47. Big Yikes says:

    While I prefer the blood sport of arguments over blocking, at a certain point leftists on social media just tend to get so repetitive…. so I’m afraid I’m a statistic, I blocked an aunt who couldn’t stop posting Drumpf comments.

  48. @iffen

    Perhaps, though I’d like to be convinced why political dissolution is a bad thing. The country isn’t united, not even close. Virtually no one disputes that and I’m not sure anybody realistically sees a way it can be reunited outside of coercion and centralized control. The last thing I want is violence when it can be avoided.

    • Replies: @WinstonSmith17
  49. At this point, nonviolent or minimally violent political dissolution is the very best scenario we can hope for. We hate each others guts so let’s go our separate ways. I’m tired of seeing blue haired, pussy hatted hyena-whales littering my visual landscape. Let’s split already!!

  50. @Audacious Epigone

    You are 100 percent correct in your assessment. There is nothing bad about dissolution at this point. The only sad thing is that we are probably going to witness a lot of violence before they let us go in peace so we can bake, or not bake, wedding cakes as we please.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS