The crony isn’t just in the capitalism. It’s in the alleged meritocracy, too. As nebulafox explains:
What we have is a sort of crony meritocracy, not too dissimilar from the crony capitalism that is our economic system. There’s enough of a sheen of merit and hard work so that people who make it feel no sort of obligation to people who don’t, hence the American political class’ attitude toward the rest of the country, but the system is riddled with inconsistencies, rigging mechanisms, and a reliance on heavy doses of luck that nobody dares acknowledge because it would invalidate the “moral” legitimacy of the mandarinate.
After legacy admissions and affirmative action, what place for genuine merit remains? The former is an intractable problem so long as the process retains any semblance of discretion. Explicit race-norming with a Woke spin–ie, systemic oppression favors whites and since they have an unfair advantage they don’t get to compete directly against blacks and Hispanics–could make the process more palatable. Backing legacy admissions out, that is effectively what happens now anyway.
Nebula again, on Wokeness as the 21st century’s will to power:
In the classical world, the strong openly based their morality on being strong. There’s enough of the worst aspects of Christianity in the Western consciousness-without any of the good stuff-left that the current powers-that-be instead legitimize themselves on public weakness and victimhood. While underneath the hood, there’s a reinstitution a blithe lack of concern for those being crushed by the machine, because they deserve it. Learn To Code is just the 21st Century version of scorning a slave on the grounds that if he were a moral, correct person, he wouldn’t be a slave. And all this leads to is a more neurotic populace because of the insistent denial of reality coexisting with a Saved vs. Damned situation in which the former are precarious and the latter have nagging fears that it’ll all blow up in their face due to forces beyond their control, actively acting against their autonomy, dragging them down.
Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it’s not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.
And then they wonder why so many people regard them as dangerously unhinged.
In fairness, they’re probably not all happy about white abortions–some presumably view it as an acceptable cost to abort non-whites. On the other hand, some bring the horseshoe theory to life by celebrating abortion as a way of ridding the world of undesirables. It is simultaneously Sangerian and monstrous.
I find it difficult to comment clinically on the subject. The idea of snuffing out human life in its most precious, vulnerable form–whatever the color or sex–is deeply saddening to me. I confess to being led entirely by the heart when it comes to the question of abortion. Having cradled a newborn, I suspect I’ll go to the grave led thusly. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I know I’m not the only one.
The political Schelling Point around abortion is based on the location of the child (inside the mother or not) and not the child’s cognitive capabilities, which increase continuously from conception to adulthood. There is no step change when a child leaves the womb, which is an arbitrary and flexible moment in time.
But I hadn’t thought much about the question of an abortion slippery slope, so I’ll speculate on it a moment. Again, I think the political matter is bound up in location of the child, so I doubt it could “slip” to infants and beyond (which is not to say our enemies would never start murdering our children, only that they’d justify it in other terms). The most probable direction of a slippery slope, then, is leading towards mandatory abortion of undesirables. Something like this may already exist in the PRC, or so they say, so it’s not so great a stretch.
If Down’s Syndrome is a genetic malformation that must be cured by culling, then how much more important is eliminating the genetic disease known as “whiteness”, the cause of all humanity’s troubles? Though really, I don’t see them saying such things entirely out loud. More likely fetuses receive a social credit score partly inherited from the parents but affected by features of the child’s genome (calculated by an algorithm that is less than fully transparent), and those below a certain score face mandatory abortion. Which, as we know, is morally equivalent to removing a tumor, so what are the grounds to really object?
Peter Singer argues–or at any rate argued–infanticide up to the age of one or so should be permissible on the grounds of total dependency, whether the dependent be inside or outside the womb. Wency’s is a good riposte to that macabre argument.
Regarding mandatory abortions for the socially pathologized–that’s many of us, folks–it still feels like a stretch. Then again, so did the idea that color blindness would go from being the liberal ideal to a reactionary position in the span of a few years, yet here we are. If my body, my choice fends off mandatory Covid shots, forced abortions are still a long way over the horizon. If they make the poke a must though, look out.
I am short (5’7) and it’s one reason I enjoy living in a Hispanic majority city. Most Hispanics are short and even the taller ones don’t seem to be obsessed with height the way white people are. Whites will make comments on me being short but Hispanics never do.
What is the ‘ideal’ height for a man? When it comes to normative traits with roughly normal distributions, my sense is two standard deviations above the average tends to be the sweet spot socially. That’s about 6’4″. Past that threshold, it becomes the first thing people notice and in the process transforms from being a nice attribute to being a defining characteristic.
Ask a new acquaintance about his religion, income, or ethnicity? That’s considered to be in poor taste. If he’s on the tail of the height distribution, however, it’s socially acceptable to ask if he plays basketball–even though you’re the fourteenth person who has asked him that today!