The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Social Media Bias by Demographic
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Many people do not think the virtual playing field is an even one:

A plurality of BIPOCs and of Democrats perceive social media to be fair. Pluralities of whites and of independents, and an outright majority of Republicans, see the deck stacked in favor of the left. Know thy enemy.

Curiously, nearly one-in-five Republicans perceive the tech companies to on their side. Must be a combination of Never Trumpers and Gab users!

 
Hide 50 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “A plurality of BIPOCs and of Democrats perceive social media to be fair.”

    Most of us have been placed on 3- to 30-day Hans for saying fairly innocuous things. It happens to everybody.

  2. Why’d you leave Gab, Audacious?

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @Gab User

    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon, @DeepThought

    , @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Gab User

    Please come back. I know it's hellish but that's because of the lack of sane people like you.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Gab User

    Social media is a baneful thing in my view. Steve Sailer said it was the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  3. @Gab User
    Why'd you leave Gab, Audacious?

    Replies: @Nodwink, @Nikolai Vladivostok, @Audacious Epigone

    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Nodwink


    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.
     
    True.

    You could also ask yourself how useful and meaningful is free speech if it can only be exercised within tiny echo chambers?
    , @anon
    @Nodwink

    There is sociological research suggesting that social media echo chambers are not filtering mechanisms for close-minded ideologues, but rather "safe spaces" to speak freely, which were created out of necessity to avoid confrontation in a harsh political climate (see: doxing, typically initiated by leftoids).

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially "diverse" discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don't have our utter destruction in mind.

    In contrast, rhetorical "diversitopias" cause people to intellectually hunker down defensively, hoping to avoid attracting an ignorati swarm intent on destroying their lives. They are also more disposed in such aggro environments to stick with their hardened beliefs and ignore nuanced counter-arguments, because the proximity of a malicious enemy precludes giving even an inch of consideration to the enemy's arguments.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @DeepThought
    @Nodwink

    Solid argument from Heartiste.

    There is sociological research suggesting that social media echo chambers are not filtering mechanisms for close-minded ideologues, but rather “safe spaces” to speak freely, which were created out of necessity to avoid confrontation in a harsh political climate (see: doxing, typically initiated by leftoids).

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.

    In contrast, rhetorical “diversitopias” cause people to intellectually hunker down defensively, hoping to avoid attracting an ignorati swarm intent on destroying their lives. They are also more disposed in such aggro environments to stick with their hardened beliefs and ignore nuanced counter-arguments, because the proximity of a malicious enemy precludes giving even an inch of consideration to the enemy’s arguments.

    Replies: @Dumbo

  4. I wonder how much this sentiment is just a function of support for Trump.

  5. Republicans who feel social media is biased towards Republicans may just not know what “biased in favor of” means.

    A lot of people don’t know what a lot of words mean and just nod along if you use them. This leads those with big vocabularies to assume everyone else is on the same level, but since many people have never read a complete book as an adult, it would be odd if they still had a full vocabulary.

    Not that book reading or fancy words are necessary for most people’s lives.

    • Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Triteleia Laxa

    On Steve's blog the other day, a survey showed that 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a gorilla in an unarmed fight.
    A certain proportion of respondents to any survey will either misunderstand the question or take the piss. This percentage might not be stable as some demographics may do this more than others.

    Replies: @A123, @TBeholder, @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    , @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa


    A lot of people don’t know what a lot of words mean and just nod along if you use them. This leads those with big vocabularies to assume everyone else is on the same level, but since many people have never read a complete book as an adult, it would be odd if they still had a full vocabulary.
     
    Yes, I agree.

    It's not just a problem of limited vocabularies. It's also a limited ability to comprehend even moderately complex concepts.

    There's also the fact that most people have zero historical perspective which makes it difficult for them to understand any question that requires at least a small amount of historical knowledge. You could ask people, "Should America return to an Isolationist foreign policy?" But most people don't even know that the US did once have an Isolationist foreign policy so they can't possibly offer a sensible opinion.

    There are a lot of issues on which it's difficult to have an informed opinion without some historical perspective.
    , @Wency
    @Triteleia Laxa

    In support of this, I'll say most of these people probably know the words "bias" and "biased". They just don't realize that the phrases "biased against" and "biased in favor of" have opposite meanings. They only think of "bias" in a negative context, which is how it's most commonly used.

    Slightly OT but in terms of Republicans perceiving bias, I will add that the Coca-Cola thing, at least in my circles, has been a real wake-up call among BoomerCons recognizing the existence of Woke Capital. Maybe it's partly that it's still thought of as a Southern company, and we're in the South -- i.e., the land where many people (including my Old Stock Southern in-laws) still refer to any sweet fizzy beverage as a "Coke". So it's seen as a particular betrayal.

  6. To say these tech companies are liberal may not be quite accurate. Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them. If they really wanted to, they could completely drive those companies out of business. Bill Gates used to be completely uninterested in politics until an antitrust suit was brought against Microsoft. This ended his naivete and he then went out and hired Washington lobbyists. Beside letting Microsoft know what could be done to them, this was a message from those in political power to all the other tech companies. You better believe they were aware of it. They are also aware they have more to fear from the Democrats, since they are the party more likely to wield these powers.

    So all the Wokeism and BLM support come partly from this. If someone tries to step out of line they can quickly be brought back in line. Parler can see its phone app taken off by Apple and its cloud service denied by Amazon. There are additional benefits too from catering to those who hold political power beside preventing onerous taxes and regulations being put on them. Additional government benefits include inflationary policies that boosts their stock prices and lengthy lockdowns, by treating a disease that is primarily dangerous to old people as something much more serious as a pretext, to force everyone to stay at home for several months thus forcing them to spend more time on their computers and using these tech companies services.

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest. I work around computer tech guys and a lot of them are more like a James Damore type but, unlike him, they have learned to keep their mouths shut about their true beliefs.

    • Agree: Nikolai Vladivostok
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    I work around computer tech guys and a lot of them are more like a James Damore type but, unlike him, they have learned to keep their mouths shut about their true beliefs.
     
    Discretion is the better part of valor. Those computer tech guys have families to raise and mortgages to pay, so one understands and respects their prudence.

    Still, one admires Damore more.
    , @Dumbo
    @Mark G.


    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.
     
    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)

    They are in bed with the government, in fact, they ARE the government. (or it is the same people, at any rate). Goolag and Zuck the Cuck are known to be a NSA/CIA operation partially government-funded (or at least in agreement with them).

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest.
     
    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government. Just take a look at all the corporate sponsors that always appear in those things like Transgender events, DIE or whatever. But, as I said, they ARE the government, so in the end it is really the same thing.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom, @TBeholder

  7. Well, it probably correlates with IQ. These results certainly seem to indicate that.

    Not that intelligence in this case is causation, mind you. We all know that different outcomes are 100% the result of environment. Clearly, systemic racism is the reason for the disparate impact on perception that causes certain types of Americans not to be able to perceive media bias.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Clearly, systemic racism is the reason for the disparate impact on perception that causes certain types of Americans not to be able to perceive media bias.
     
    After struggling to parse this challenging construct, I gather that you mean some people can't recognise racially motivated bias in media reporting as such, because it comports with their own racially biased view of reality.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  8. It is interesting that lowest score for “neither, neutral” is the 8% for Republicans. Every other group is more than 3x higher (26%+).

    Exposure to media + common sense has shown Republicans that “everyone has biases” there is no such thing as impartial.

    PEACE 😇

  9. @Mark G.
    To say these tech companies are liberal may not be quite accurate. Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them. If they really wanted to, they could completely drive those companies out of business. Bill Gates used to be completely uninterested in politics until an antitrust suit was brought against Microsoft. This ended his naivete and he then went out and hired Washington lobbyists. Beside letting Microsoft know what could be done to them, this was a message from those in political power to all the other tech companies. You better believe they were aware of it. They are also aware they have more to fear from the Democrats, since they are the party more likely to wield these powers.

    So all the Wokeism and BLM support come partly from this. If someone tries to step out of line they can quickly be brought back in line. Parler can see its phone app taken off by Apple and its cloud service denied by Amazon. There are additional benefits too from catering to those who hold political power beside preventing onerous taxes and regulations being put on them. Additional government benefits include inflationary policies that boosts their stock prices and lengthy lockdowns, by treating a disease that is primarily dangerous to old people as something much more serious as a pretext, to force everyone to stay at home for several months thus forcing them to spend more time on their computers and using these tech companies services.

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest. I work around computer tech guys and a lot of them are more like a James Damore type but, unlike him, they have learned to keep their mouths shut about their true beliefs.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Dumbo

    I work around computer tech guys and a lot of them are more like a James Damore type but, unlike him, they have learned to keep their mouths shut about their true beliefs.

    Discretion is the better part of valor. Those computer tech guys have families to raise and mortgages to pay, so one understands and respects their prudence.

    Still, one admires Damore more.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  10. Pluralities of whites and of independents, and an outright majority of Republicans, see the deck stacked in favor of the left.

    White grievance seems to never end. Maybe they should just leave? I’ve never been happier after expatriating.

  11. @Gab User
    Why'd you leave Gab, Audacious?

    Replies: @Nodwink, @Nikolai Vladivostok, @Audacious Epigone

    Please come back. I know it’s hellish but that’s because of the lack of sane people like you.

  12. @Triteleia Laxa
    Republicans who feel social media is biased towards Republicans may just not know what "biased in favor of" means.

    A lot of people don't know what a lot of words mean and just nod along if you use them. This leads those with big vocabularies to assume everyone else is on the same level, but since many people have never read a complete book as an adult, it would be odd if they still had a full vocabulary.

    Not that book reading or fancy words are necessary for most people's lives.

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok, @dfordoom, @Wency

    On Steve’s blog the other day, a survey showed that 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a gorilla in an unarmed fight.
    A certain proportion of respondents to any survey will either misunderstand the question or take the piss. This percentage might not be stable as some demographics may do this more than others.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @A123
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Some gorillas are more useful than others.

    I would not want to fight any of them though.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    https://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/semicolon/header.png

    , @TBeholder
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    I prefer "According to an Internet poll, 100% of Russians use Internet".
    Yes, in surveys doubt of the methodology is always warranted.

    , @Wency
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Scott Alexander dubbed this the Lizardman Constant and estimated it at 4-5% for a typical poll:

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/

    But it's probably fair to say the "constant" varies based on the population polled.

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Yeah I saw that. Similar percentages said they could be an elephant and a grizzly, animals that are even more formidable than gorillas!

  13. @Mark G.
    To say these tech companies are liberal may not be quite accurate. Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them. If they really wanted to, they could completely drive those companies out of business. Bill Gates used to be completely uninterested in politics until an antitrust suit was brought against Microsoft. This ended his naivete and he then went out and hired Washington lobbyists. Beside letting Microsoft know what could be done to them, this was a message from those in political power to all the other tech companies. You better believe they were aware of it. They are also aware they have more to fear from the Democrats, since they are the party more likely to wield these powers.

    So all the Wokeism and BLM support come partly from this. If someone tries to step out of line they can quickly be brought back in line. Parler can see its phone app taken off by Apple and its cloud service denied by Amazon. There are additional benefits too from catering to those who hold political power beside preventing onerous taxes and regulations being put on them. Additional government benefits include inflationary policies that boosts their stock prices and lengthy lockdowns, by treating a disease that is primarily dangerous to old people as something much more serious as a pretext, to force everyone to stay at home for several months thus forcing them to spend more time on their computers and using these tech companies services.

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest. I work around computer tech guys and a lot of them are more like a James Damore type but, unlike him, they have learned to keep their mouths shut about their true beliefs.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Dumbo

    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.

    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)

    They are in bed with the government, in fact, they ARE the government. (or it is the same people, at any rate). Goolag and Zuck the Cuck are known to be a NSA/CIA operation partially government-funded (or at least in agreement with them).

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest.

    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government. Just take a look at all the corporate sponsors that always appear in those things like Transgender events, DIE or whatever. But, as I said, they ARE the government, so in the end it is really the same thing.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Dumbo


    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government.

     

    High IQ nerdy white tech guys and low IQ criminal inner city blacks always seemed like strange bedfellows to me. I have always been especially aware of this since I lived in a high crime black ghetto for a few years when I was young and now work around computer guys. I can't think of two groups who have less in common. Yet these tech companies are huge supporters of the current negrolatry and the tech titans donate lots of money to Democrat politicians who support BLM and defunding the police.

    So why is this? What benefit do rich Silicon Valley types of whites get from working to unleash criminal blacks upon society? Part of it may be limousine liberalism. They are rich enough they can isolate themselves from black crime and black dysfunction. Part of it may be a mistaken libertarianish belief that cutting police funding is reducing the size of government. I think you need to go back to the nineties to find the origins of it, though.

    The nineties was when the left completed the takeover of the educational system and the mainstream media. The former sixties radicals had reached a position where they could do this. At this point, though, a new problem came along with the internet. The internet threatened to allow alternative viewpoints to get through to the general public. For a while it did this and made the Tea Party movement and then Trump possible. The left has been working for the last twenty years to stop this, using both a carrot and a stick approach. You now have a form of high tech fascism, with these tech companies still nominally under private control but with the reality that them and the government are almost operating now as a single entity.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @Dumbo



    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.
     
    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)
     
    That's how protection rackets work. It's also how extortion works. Smart gangsters and smart blackmailers don't make their threats too overt or too direct.

    "Nice little tech monopoly you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it."
    , @TBeholder
    @Dumbo

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug's article… but it's fairly obvious just from human nature.
    So, Facehug has inquisition that watches posts for compliance with the latest bullas of the ruling theocracy, no matter how ridiculous. Even purging mentions of a certain math concept. But this obviously does not align with the profit, i.e. comes at the expense thereof. Because those happy about it are vocal minority, and all claims to the contrary are pure gaslighting: otherwise "Fembusters" and "Soylo" would be super-blockbusters, and there won't be any demand for banning mentions of Benford's Law in the first place! All agreed? Moving on.
    This situation leaves us with two major possibilities:
    A. Zuck wants to do this, i.e. he willingly sacrifices his profit for virtue as a True Believer. It's in his power.
    B. Zuck does not want to do this, at least this specific way, i.e. he is coerced. It's not his power, he is forced to be a conduit of another's power.

    Now, the thing about a human brain is, it can't help but to reinterpret and re-prioritize. It's a core function. It's inevitable.
    Thus everyone has a personal idea of where exactly to go right now. The crowd does not naturally goosestep, it naturally diffuses, strays and wanders around. Those who follow are the ones unable or unwilling to go their own way (and maybe lead others) for some reason. Many are just lazy, but then they won't go anywhere at all if it was entirely up to them, would they?
    Which is why any mass movement is naturally non-homogenous. Even tumblrinas in the natural habitat tend toward "Oppression Olympics", not some magic immutable order.
    Any True Believer with power and will to promote a movement will naturally start or promote "his own thing", a specific sect — perhaps not very deviant from mainstream, but chosen or built as best fit for the personal tastes of its patron. Did you ever see anything like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc brands of Progressive neo-Puritanism? Me neither. Only minor variations in zeal.
    But if not — believers or not, they are not free to run "their thing" the way they want. They must ape someone else. The choir boys are far downstream from the real Bishops, let alone Cardinals.

    Replies: @Nicholas R. Jeelvy, @Dumbo, @anon, @Audacious Epigone

  14. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Triteleia Laxa

    On Steve's blog the other day, a survey showed that 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a gorilla in an unarmed fight.
    A certain proportion of respondents to any survey will either misunderstand the question or take the piss. This percentage might not be stable as some demographics may do this more than others.

    Replies: @A123, @TBeholder, @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    Some gorillas are more useful than others.

    I would not want to fight any of them though.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    https://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

    [MORE]

  15. @Nodwink
    @Gab User

    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon, @DeepThought

    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.

    True.

    You could also ask yourself how useful and meaningful is free speech if it can only be exercised within tiny echo chambers?

  16. @Dumbo
    @Mark G.


    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.
     
    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)

    They are in bed with the government, in fact, they ARE the government. (or it is the same people, at any rate). Goolag and Zuck the Cuck are known to be a NSA/CIA operation partially government-funded (or at least in agreement with them).

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest.
     
    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government. Just take a look at all the corporate sponsors that always appear in those things like Transgender events, DIE or whatever. But, as I said, they ARE the government, so in the end it is really the same thing.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom, @TBeholder

    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government.

    High IQ nerdy white tech guys and low IQ criminal inner city blacks always seemed like strange bedfellows to me. I have always been especially aware of this since I lived in a high crime black ghetto for a few years when I was young and now work around computer guys. I can’t think of two groups who have less in common. Yet these tech companies are huge supporters of the current negrolatry and the tech titans donate lots of money to Democrat politicians who support BLM and defunding the police.

    So why is this? What benefit do rich Silicon Valley types of whites get from working to unleash criminal blacks upon society? Part of it may be limousine liberalism. They are rich enough they can isolate themselves from black crime and black dysfunction. Part of it may be a mistaken libertarianish belief that cutting police funding is reducing the size of government. I think you need to go back to the nineties to find the origins of it, though.

    The nineties was when the left completed the takeover of the educational system and the mainstream media. The former sixties radicals had reached a position where they could do this. At this point, though, a new problem came along with the internet. The internet threatened to allow alternative viewpoints to get through to the general public. For a while it did this and made the Tea Party movement and then Trump possible. The left has been working for the last twenty years to stop this, using both a carrot and a stick approach. You now have a form of high tech fascism, with these tech companies still nominally under private control but with the reality that them and the government are almost operating now as a single entity.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    You now have a form of high tech fascism, with these tech companies still nominally under private control but with the reality that them and the government are almost operating now as a single entity.
     
    The question is whether it's corporations controlling the government or the government controlling the corporations. Or they're so closely linked that it's impossible to tell.
  17. @Triteleia Laxa
    Republicans who feel social media is biased towards Republicans may just not know what "biased in favor of" means.

    A lot of people don't know what a lot of words mean and just nod along if you use them. This leads those with big vocabularies to assume everyone else is on the same level, but since many people have never read a complete book as an adult, it would be odd if they still had a full vocabulary.

    Not that book reading or fancy words are necessary for most people's lives.

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok, @dfordoom, @Wency

    A lot of people don’t know what a lot of words mean and just nod along if you use them. This leads those with big vocabularies to assume everyone else is on the same level, but since many people have never read a complete book as an adult, it would be odd if they still had a full vocabulary.

    Yes, I agree.

    It’s not just a problem of limited vocabularies. It’s also a limited ability to comprehend even moderately complex concepts.

    There’s also the fact that most people have zero historical perspective which makes it difficult for them to understand any question that requires at least a small amount of historical knowledge. You could ask people, “Should America return to an Isolationist foreign policy?” But most people don’t even know that the US did once have an Isolationist foreign policy so they can’t possibly offer a sensible opinion.

    There are a lot of issues on which it’s difficult to have an informed opinion without some historical perspective.

  18. @Buzz Mohawk
    Well, it probably correlates with IQ. These results certainly seem to indicate that.

    Not that intelligence in this case is causation, mind you. We all know that different outcomes are 100% the result of environment. Clearly, systemic racism is the reason for the disparate impact on perception that causes certain types of Americans not to be able to perceive media bias.

    Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave

    Clearly, systemic racism is the reason for the disparate impact on perception that causes certain types of Americans not to be able to perceive media bias.

    After struggling to parse this challenging construct, I gather that you mean some people can’t recognise racially motivated bias in media reporting as such, because it comports with their own racially biased view of reality.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    No. It was a joke.

  19. @Dumbo
    @Mark G.


    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.
     
    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)

    They are in bed with the government, in fact, they ARE the government. (or it is the same people, at any rate). Goolag and Zuck the Cuck are known to be a NSA/CIA operation partially government-funded (or at least in agreement with them).

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest.
     
    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government. Just take a look at all the corporate sponsors that always appear in those things like Transgender events, DIE or whatever. But, as I said, they ARE the government, so in the end it is really the same thing.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom, @TBeholder

    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.

    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)

    That’s how protection rackets work. It’s also how extortion works. Smart gangsters and smart blackmailers don’t make their threats too overt or too direct.

    “Nice little tech monopoly you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”

    • Agree: Mark G.
  20. At a minimum, the Big Tech platforms should be regulated as common carriers.

    Otherwise, they should be nationalized, particularly Twitter.

  21. @Mark G.
    @Dumbo


    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government.

     

    High IQ nerdy white tech guys and low IQ criminal inner city blacks always seemed like strange bedfellows to me. I have always been especially aware of this since I lived in a high crime black ghetto for a few years when I was young and now work around computer guys. I can't think of two groups who have less in common. Yet these tech companies are huge supporters of the current negrolatry and the tech titans donate lots of money to Democrat politicians who support BLM and defunding the police.

    So why is this? What benefit do rich Silicon Valley types of whites get from working to unleash criminal blacks upon society? Part of it may be limousine liberalism. They are rich enough they can isolate themselves from black crime and black dysfunction. Part of it may be a mistaken libertarianish belief that cutting police funding is reducing the size of government. I think you need to go back to the nineties to find the origins of it, though.

    The nineties was when the left completed the takeover of the educational system and the mainstream media. The former sixties radicals had reached a position where they could do this. At this point, though, a new problem came along with the internet. The internet threatened to allow alternative viewpoints to get through to the general public. For a while it did this and made the Tea Party movement and then Trump possible. The left has been working for the last twenty years to stop this, using both a carrot and a stick approach. You now have a form of high tech fascism, with these tech companies still nominally under private control but with the reality that them and the government are almost operating now as a single entity.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You now have a form of high tech fascism, with these tech companies still nominally under private control but with the reality that them and the government are almost operating now as a single entity.

    The question is whether it’s corporations controlling the government or the government controlling the corporations. Or they’re so closely linked that it’s impossible to tell.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  22. @Ultrafart the Brave
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Clearly, systemic racism is the reason for the disparate impact on perception that causes certain types of Americans not to be able to perceive media bias.
     
    After struggling to parse this challenging construct, I gather that you mean some people can't recognise racially motivated bias in media reporting as such, because it comports with their own racially biased view of reality.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    No. It was a joke.

    • LOL: Stan D Mute
  23. It’s still very naive, IMHO.
    1. What is even the real-world meaning of “fair social media”? Assuming it does make some sort of sense.
    2. Biased from what? From the center? But who does define the center of politics for USA and satellites thereof? New York Times, CNN and the rest of this choir. Who else?
    Trump broke the Overton Window along with the wall it was in, sure. But the main result of this was the state of politics becoming quite obvious even to oblivious people, not actually changing. Why would it?
    3. “Republicans”? But they are… the Outer Party. Loyal opposition. Cosmetic conservatives. Jobbing is their job description. If you can make a case that “social media” is biased against “Republicans”, you also could make an equally good (or better!) case that they are biased against themselves. Which sounds ridiculous, yes.

  24. @Dumbo
    @Mark G.


    Part of it may just be fear. These companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon are aware that the Democrats have various tools like taxes and regulatory powers that can be used against them.
     
    LOL. Fear?? Then why did they give so much money to Democrats? (And a smaller amount to the other side of the Uniparty, the Republicans, just in case)

    They are in bed with the government, in fact, they ARE the government. (or it is the same people, at any rate). Goolag and Zuck the Cuck are known to be a NSA/CIA operation partially government-funded (or at least in agreement with them).

    So a lot of this is just doing something that is in their self-interest, rather than an actual desire to support Wokeness, BLM, St. George Floyd worship and all the rest.
     
    The primary force in support of GloboHomo, BLM, etc comes from corporations, NOT the government. Just take a look at all the corporate sponsors that always appear in those things like Transgender events, DIE or whatever. But, as I said, they ARE the government, so in the end it is really the same thing.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom, @TBeholder

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article… but it’s fairly obvious just from human nature.
    So, Facehug has inquisition that watches posts for compliance with the latest bullas of the ruling theocracy, no matter how ridiculous. Even purging mentions of a certain math concept. But this obviously does not align with the profit, i.e. comes at the expense thereof. Because those happy about it are vocal minority, and all claims to the contrary are pure gaslighting: otherwise “Fembusters” and “Soylo” would be super-blockbusters, and there won’t be any demand for banning mentions of Benford’s Law in the first place! All agreed? Moving on.
    This situation leaves us with two major possibilities:
    A. Zuck wants to do this, i.e. he willingly sacrifices his profit for virtue as a True Believer. It’s in his power.
    B. Zuck does not want to do this, at least this specific way, i.e. he is coerced. It’s not his power, he is forced to be a conduit of another’s power.

    Now, the thing about a human brain is, it can’t help but to reinterpret and re-prioritize. It’s a core function. It’s inevitable.
    Thus everyone has a personal idea of where exactly to go right now. The crowd does not naturally goosestep, it naturally diffuses, strays and wanders around. Those who follow are the ones unable or unwilling to go their own way (and maybe lead others) for some reason. Many are just lazy, but then they won’t go anywhere at all if it was entirely up to them, would they?
    Which is why any mass movement is naturally non-homogenous. Even tumblrinas in the natural habitat tend toward “Oppression Olympics”, not some magic immutable order.
    Any True Believer with power and will to promote a movement will naturally start or promote “his own thing”, a specific sect — perhaps not very deviant from mainstream, but chosen or built as best fit for the personal tastes of its patron. Did you ever see anything like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc brands of Progressive neo-Puritanism? Me neither. Only minor variations in zeal.
    But if not — believers or not, they are not free to run “their thing” the way they want. They must ape someone else. The choir boys are far downstream from the real Bishops, let alone Cardinals.

    • Replies: @Nicholas R. Jeelvy
    @TBeholder

    Pretty convenient how in Moldbug's theory all of Moldbug's friends and colleagues in Silicon Valley are absolved of responsibility for censorship.

    , @Dumbo
    @TBeholder


    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article…
     
    Meh. Moldbug (Yarvin) is just another little clever misinformer, it's pretty clear now.

    The idea that Zuckerberg and Bezos and other zillionaires are being somehow forced to be progressive is ridiculous.

    If there is a "higher power" above them, then it's Satan.

    Anyway, I have to admit that I didn't really understand well your obtuse Moldbug-wannabe prose, so maybe you were trying to say something else.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    , @anon
    @TBeholder

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article…

    (((Curtis Yarvin))) might not be a totally dispassionate observer, you know.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @TBeholder

    Facebook's market cap has nearly tripled since Trump won the GOP nomination and the censoring began in earnest. It is worth nearly $1 trillion now. The tech companies can destroy any political figure they want to.

  25. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Triteleia Laxa

    On Steve's blog the other day, a survey showed that 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a gorilla in an unarmed fight.
    A certain proportion of respondents to any survey will either misunderstand the question or take the piss. This percentage might not be stable as some demographics may do this more than others.

    Replies: @A123, @TBeholder, @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    I prefer “According to an Internet poll, 100% of Russians use Internet”.
    Yes, in surveys doubt of the methodology is always warranted.

  26. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Triteleia Laxa

    On Steve's blog the other day, a survey showed that 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a gorilla in an unarmed fight.
    A certain proportion of respondents to any survey will either misunderstand the question or take the piss. This percentage might not be stable as some demographics may do this more than others.

    Replies: @A123, @TBeholder, @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    Scott Alexander dubbed this the Lizardman Constant and estimated it at 4-5% for a typical poll:

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/

    But it’s probably fair to say the “constant” varies based on the population polled.

    • Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Wency

    Cheers. I wonder if anyone has tried to norm the Lizardman Constant by polling various groups with questions like, what is the moon made from, or, is Australia a real country.

  27. @Triteleia Laxa
    Republicans who feel social media is biased towards Republicans may just not know what "biased in favor of" means.

    A lot of people don't know what a lot of words mean and just nod along if you use them. This leads those with big vocabularies to assume everyone else is on the same level, but since many people have never read a complete book as an adult, it would be odd if they still had a full vocabulary.

    Not that book reading or fancy words are necessary for most people's lives.

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok, @dfordoom, @Wency

    In support of this, I’ll say most of these people probably know the words “bias” and “biased”. They just don’t realize that the phrases “biased against” and “biased in favor of” have opposite meanings. They only think of “bias” in a negative context, which is how it’s most commonly used.

    Slightly OT but in terms of Republicans perceiving bias, I will add that the Coca-Cola thing, at least in my circles, has been a real wake-up call among BoomerCons recognizing the existence of Woke Capital. Maybe it’s partly that it’s still thought of as a Southern company, and we’re in the South — i.e., the land where many people (including my Old Stock Southern in-laws) still refer to any sweet fizzy beverage as a “Coke”. So it’s seen as a particular betrayal.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
  28. anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nodwink
    @Gab User

    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon, @DeepThought

    There is sociological research suggesting that social media echo chambers are not filtering mechanisms for close-minded ideologues, but rather “safe spaces” to speak freely, which were created out of necessity to avoid confrontation in a harsh political climate (see: doxing, typically initiated by leftoids).

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.

    In contrast, rhetorical “diversitopias” cause people to intellectually hunker down defensively, hoping to avoid attracting an ignorati swarm intent on destroying their lives. They are also more disposed in such aggro environments to stick with their hardened beliefs and ignore nuanced counter-arguments, because the proximity of a malicious enemy precludes giving even an inch of consideration to the enemy’s arguments.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon

    Things used not to be this way:


    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.
     
    However, things are this way now. Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.

    Why futile? Sometimes because the Wokists' ideas are just too mad, but more often because the Wokist uses speech (at least when speaking to you and me) as a virtue signal rather than a means of communication.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  29. @Nodwink
    @Gab User

    Who would want to be on Gab? Echo chambers are boring.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon, @DeepThought

    Solid argument from Heartiste.

    There is sociological research suggesting that social media echo chambers are not filtering mechanisms for close-minded ideologues, but rather “safe spaces” to speak freely, which were created out of necessity to avoid confrontation in a harsh political climate (see: doxing, typically initiated by leftoids).

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.

    In contrast, rhetorical “diversitopias” cause people to intellectually hunker down defensively, hoping to avoid attracting an ignorati swarm intent on destroying their lives. They are also more disposed in such aggro environments to stick with their hardened beliefs and ignore nuanced counter-arguments, because the proximity of a malicious enemy precludes giving even an inch of consideration to the enemy’s arguments.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @DeepThought

    This "echo chambers" thing may be a myth. Even here at UNZ discourse is quite varied. It's impossible to agree with everyone all the time. But you can't discuss with Progs, because their whole mental universe is different. Also, they are not really interested in arguing. It's really just who/whom or sophisms all the time.

    To discuss with them is just a waste of time.

  30. i.e., the land where many people (including my Old Stock Southern in-laws) still refer to any sweet fizzy beverage as a “Coke”.

    And when they speak of Coke itself, they still call it “Soda Dope”…….

  31. @TBeholder
    @Dumbo

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug's article… but it's fairly obvious just from human nature.
    So, Facehug has inquisition that watches posts for compliance with the latest bullas of the ruling theocracy, no matter how ridiculous. Even purging mentions of a certain math concept. But this obviously does not align with the profit, i.e. comes at the expense thereof. Because those happy about it are vocal minority, and all claims to the contrary are pure gaslighting: otherwise "Fembusters" and "Soylo" would be super-blockbusters, and there won't be any demand for banning mentions of Benford's Law in the first place! All agreed? Moving on.
    This situation leaves us with two major possibilities:
    A. Zuck wants to do this, i.e. he willingly sacrifices his profit for virtue as a True Believer. It's in his power.
    B. Zuck does not want to do this, at least this specific way, i.e. he is coerced. It's not his power, he is forced to be a conduit of another's power.

    Now, the thing about a human brain is, it can't help but to reinterpret and re-prioritize. It's a core function. It's inevitable.
    Thus everyone has a personal idea of where exactly to go right now. The crowd does not naturally goosestep, it naturally diffuses, strays and wanders around. Those who follow are the ones unable or unwilling to go their own way (and maybe lead others) for some reason. Many are just lazy, but then they won't go anywhere at all if it was entirely up to them, would they?
    Which is why any mass movement is naturally non-homogenous. Even tumblrinas in the natural habitat tend toward "Oppression Olympics", not some magic immutable order.
    Any True Believer with power and will to promote a movement will naturally start or promote "his own thing", a specific sect — perhaps not very deviant from mainstream, but chosen or built as best fit for the personal tastes of its patron. Did you ever see anything like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc brands of Progressive neo-Puritanism? Me neither. Only minor variations in zeal.
    But if not — believers or not, they are not free to run "their thing" the way they want. They must ape someone else. The choir boys are far downstream from the real Bishops, let alone Cardinals.

    Replies: @Nicholas R. Jeelvy, @Dumbo, @anon, @Audacious Epigone

    Pretty convenient how in Moldbug’s theory all of Moldbug’s friends and colleagues in Silicon Valley are absolved of responsibility for censorship.

  32. @Wency
    @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Scott Alexander dubbed this the Lizardman Constant and estimated it at 4-5% for a typical poll:

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/

    But it's probably fair to say the "constant" varies based on the population polled.

    Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok

    Cheers. I wonder if anyone has tried to norm the Lizardman Constant by polling various groups with questions like, what is the moon made from, or, is Australia a real country.

  33. @anon
    @Nodwink

    There is sociological research suggesting that social media echo chambers are not filtering mechanisms for close-minded ideologues, but rather "safe spaces" to speak freely, which were created out of necessity to avoid confrontation in a harsh political climate (see: doxing, typically initiated by leftoids).

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially "diverse" discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don't have our utter destruction in mind.

    In contrast, rhetorical "diversitopias" cause people to intellectually hunker down defensively, hoping to avoid attracting an ignorati swarm intent on destroying their lives. They are also more disposed in such aggro environments to stick with their hardened beliefs and ignore nuanced counter-arguments, because the proximity of a malicious enemy precludes giving even an inch of consideration to the enemy's arguments.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Things used not to be this way:

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.

    However, things are this way now. Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.

    Why futile? Sometimes because the Wokists’ ideas are just too mad, but more often because the Wokist uses speech (at least when speaking to you and me) as a virtue signal rather than a means of communication.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.
     
    Correct.

    To be honest discussion with any kind of committed ideologue (or anyone committed to a religious belief) is futile. The purpose of any kind of political activism is to target the normies, the majority who don't have rigid opinions. To try to persuade the normies to start thinking a little bit. You can't do that in an echo chamber. So joining echo chambers like Gab is an admission of defeat. It's an admission that you've given up trying to reach the normies, which means you've accepted defeat.

    It seems to me that the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups are moving more and more towards this position. They're accepting that they've lost so they're resorting to hiding out in right-wing chambers, or they're resorting to fantasies like separation.

    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

  34. @TBeholder
    @Dumbo

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug's article… but it's fairly obvious just from human nature.
    So, Facehug has inquisition that watches posts for compliance with the latest bullas of the ruling theocracy, no matter how ridiculous. Even purging mentions of a certain math concept. But this obviously does not align with the profit, i.e. comes at the expense thereof. Because those happy about it are vocal minority, and all claims to the contrary are pure gaslighting: otherwise "Fembusters" and "Soylo" would be super-blockbusters, and there won't be any demand for banning mentions of Benford's Law in the first place! All agreed? Moving on.
    This situation leaves us with two major possibilities:
    A. Zuck wants to do this, i.e. he willingly sacrifices his profit for virtue as a True Believer. It's in his power.
    B. Zuck does not want to do this, at least this specific way, i.e. he is coerced. It's not his power, he is forced to be a conduit of another's power.

    Now, the thing about a human brain is, it can't help but to reinterpret and re-prioritize. It's a core function. It's inevitable.
    Thus everyone has a personal idea of where exactly to go right now. The crowd does not naturally goosestep, it naturally diffuses, strays and wanders around. Those who follow are the ones unable or unwilling to go their own way (and maybe lead others) for some reason. Many are just lazy, but then they won't go anywhere at all if it was entirely up to them, would they?
    Which is why any mass movement is naturally non-homogenous. Even tumblrinas in the natural habitat tend toward "Oppression Olympics", not some magic immutable order.
    Any True Believer with power and will to promote a movement will naturally start or promote "his own thing", a specific sect — perhaps not very deviant from mainstream, but chosen or built as best fit for the personal tastes of its patron. Did you ever see anything like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc brands of Progressive neo-Puritanism? Me neither. Only minor variations in zeal.
    But if not — believers or not, they are not free to run "their thing" the way they want. They must ape someone else. The choir boys are far downstream from the real Bishops, let alone Cardinals.

    Replies: @Nicholas R. Jeelvy, @Dumbo, @anon, @Audacious Epigone

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article…

    Meh. Moldbug (Yarvin) is just another little clever misinformer, it’s pretty clear now.

    The idea that Zuckerberg and Bezos and other zillionaires are being somehow forced to be progressive is ridiculous.

    If there is a “higher power” above them, then it’s Satan.

    Anyway, I have to admit that I didn’t really understand well your obtuse Moldbug-wannabe prose, so maybe you were trying to say something else.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Dumbo


    Moldbug ... is just another little clever misinformer, it’s pretty clear now.
     
    Whether you agree with Unqualified Reservations or not, if you have read it and have not found it riveting, then you would be the first I know. Moldbug is the sole English-language Jewish philosopher ever, as far as I am aware, actually to make Kabbalah interesting.

    What do you mean by “misinformer,” other than that Moldbug tends to let his own cleverness carry him away? Do you refer to Borzoi Boskovic's interview of Moldbug? Or do you mean something else?

    Replies: @Dumbo

    , @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    The idea that Zuckerberg and Bezos and other zillionaires are being somehow forced to be progressive is ridiculous.
     
    Not necessarily. The corporate sector has always been cowardly. They'll go along with whatever the ruling ideology happens to be, whether it's left or right, socially liberal or socially conservative.

    And even the largest and most powerful corporations are aware that the government could, if it chose, stomp them. So it's in their interest to take out insurance by conforming to political positions favoured by the government of the day. Just as many small businesses used to consider it to be in their interests to pay protection money to racketeers.

    You also have to consider that even zillionaires are human. They want to be liked. They want to be popular. They want to be invited to the right cocktail parties. They want to be accepted by the social circles in which they move. They're not immune from the normal human desire to gain social approval by social conformity.

    I'd say that the zillionaires and the elites probably vary quite a bit with some being True Believers, some being cowards, some being opportunists.
  35. @TBeholder
    @Dumbo

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug's article… but it's fairly obvious just from human nature.
    So, Facehug has inquisition that watches posts for compliance with the latest bullas of the ruling theocracy, no matter how ridiculous. Even purging mentions of a certain math concept. But this obviously does not align with the profit, i.e. comes at the expense thereof. Because those happy about it are vocal minority, and all claims to the contrary are pure gaslighting: otherwise "Fembusters" and "Soylo" would be super-blockbusters, and there won't be any demand for banning mentions of Benford's Law in the first place! All agreed? Moving on.
    This situation leaves us with two major possibilities:
    A. Zuck wants to do this, i.e. he willingly sacrifices his profit for virtue as a True Believer. It's in his power.
    B. Zuck does not want to do this, at least this specific way, i.e. he is coerced. It's not his power, he is forced to be a conduit of another's power.

    Now, the thing about a human brain is, it can't help but to reinterpret and re-prioritize. It's a core function. It's inevitable.
    Thus everyone has a personal idea of where exactly to go right now. The crowd does not naturally goosestep, it naturally diffuses, strays and wanders around. Those who follow are the ones unable or unwilling to go their own way (and maybe lead others) for some reason. Many are just lazy, but then they won't go anywhere at all if it was entirely up to them, would they?
    Which is why any mass movement is naturally non-homogenous. Even tumblrinas in the natural habitat tend toward "Oppression Olympics", not some magic immutable order.
    Any True Believer with power and will to promote a movement will naturally start or promote "his own thing", a specific sect — perhaps not very deviant from mainstream, but chosen or built as best fit for the personal tastes of its patron. Did you ever see anything like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc brands of Progressive neo-Puritanism? Me neither. Only minor variations in zeal.
    But if not — believers or not, they are not free to run "their thing" the way they want. They must ape someone else. The choir boys are far downstream from the real Bishops, let alone Cardinals.

    Replies: @Nicholas R. Jeelvy, @Dumbo, @anon, @Audacious Epigone

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article…

    (((Curtis Yarvin))) might not be a totally dispassionate observer, you know.

  36. @DeepThought
    @Nodwink

    Solid argument from Heartiste.

    There is sociological research suggesting that social media echo chambers are not filtering mechanisms for close-minded ideologues, but rather “safe spaces” to speak freely, which were created out of necessity to avoid confrontation in a harsh political climate (see: doxing, typically initiated by leftoids).

    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.

    In contrast, rhetorical “diversitopias” cause people to intellectually hunker down defensively, hoping to avoid attracting an ignorati swarm intent on destroying their lives. They are also more disposed in such aggro environments to stick with their hardened beliefs and ignore nuanced counter-arguments, because the proximity of a malicious enemy precludes giving even an inch of consideration to the enemy’s arguments.

    Replies: @Dumbo

    This “echo chambers” thing may be a myth. Even here at UNZ discourse is quite varied. It’s impossible to agree with everyone all the time. But you can’t discuss with Progs, because their whole mental universe is different. Also, they are not really interested in arguing. It’s really just who/whom or sophisms all the time.

    To discuss with them is just a waste of time.

  37. @Dumbo
    @TBeholder


    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article…
     
    Meh. Moldbug (Yarvin) is just another little clever misinformer, it's pretty clear now.

    The idea that Zuckerberg and Bezos and other zillionaires are being somehow forced to be progressive is ridiculous.

    If there is a "higher power" above them, then it's Satan.

    Anyway, I have to admit that I didn't really understand well your obtuse Moldbug-wannabe prose, so maybe you were trying to say something else.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    Moldbug … is just another little clever misinformer, it’s pretty clear now.

    Whether you agree with Unqualified Reservations or not, if you have read it and have not found it riveting, then you would be the first I know. Moldbug is the sole English-language Jewish philosopher ever, as far as I am aware, actually to make Kabbalah interesting.

    What do you mean by “misinformer,” other than that Moldbug tends to let his own cleverness carry him away? Do you refer to Borzoi Boskovic’s interview of Moldbug? Or do you mean something else?

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Moldbug is too long-winded. Way back when he wrote a few interesting things at his UR but even then he badly needed an editor; reading his whole posts was a drag.

    I meant "disinformation", sorry. Purposefully writing to deceive. To divert attention from one group to another. i.e. "the Cathedral" instead of the more obvious "Synagogue".

    His latest texts (the few I've seen) are even worse, not even having the occasional brilliance of UR.

  38. @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon

    Things used not to be this way:


    It may in fact be the case that echo chambers are *less* boring and *more* intellectually stimulating than politically, socially, or racially “diverse” discourse arenas, because the echo chamber provides a level of comfort and confidence that allows for the flourishing of real debate. We are more open to considering the merits of challenges to our worldview or our opinions when we are with intellectual and emotional compatriots who don’t have our utter destruction in mind.
     
    However, things are this way now. Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.

    Why futile? Sometimes because the Wokists' ideas are just too mad, but more often because the Wokist uses speech (at least when speaking to you and me) as a virtue signal rather than a means of communication.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.

    Correct.

    To be honest discussion with any kind of committed ideologue (or anyone committed to a religious belief) is futile. The purpose of any kind of political activism is to target the normies, the majority who don’t have rigid opinions. To try to persuade the normies to start thinking a little bit. You can’t do that in an echo chamber. So joining echo chambers like Gab is an admission of defeat. It’s an admission that you’ve given up trying to reach the normies, which means you’ve accepted defeat.

    It seems to me that the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups are moving more and more towards this position. They’re accepting that they’ve lost so they’re resorting to hiding out in right-wing chambers, or they’re resorting to fantasies like separation.

    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?
     
    One might say that the surest way for the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups to embrace defeatism were to hearken to you!

    I do not say that, of course. I believe that hearkening to you would benefit many. However, regarding the utility of tradition—or, stronger put, reaction—you and I simply disagree.

    Debates over semantics are boring but I suppose that I will be boring for a moment. “Far right” is a transparent and not very clever pejorative. It isn't even a useful descriptor, except in relation to the mad, self-destructive politics of the early-21st-century West.

    As far as going on to win is concerned, you and I are both old enough to have watched the political pendulum swing. U.S. political dynamics are peculiar in that they seem to leave little room for a third national party. The far right therefore wins by organizing a constituency the mainstream right must act to capture. Really, it's a nice way to win, because the hotheads apply the pressure and then mundane, moderately corrupt but well-balanced politicians end up in actual charge of implementing the necessary policy.

    I am under no delusion that I am likely to get what I want out of the political process, but some or all of the following are achievable in a U.S. context as far as I know:

        * reduction in immigration;
        * strengthening of the family;
        * readmission of the non-Woke to the bureaucracy;
        * increase in import tariffs (for the U.S. is not Australia);
        * more realistic assessment of the proclivities of the negro race;
        * moderate pressure for U.S. Jews to be less hostile;
        * teaching of a patriotic narrative to young citizens;
        * steeper progressive taxation of the wealthiest 0.1 percent;
        * stronger local control of schools;
        * continuing local control of police;
        * restoration of free association to individuals and small businesses;
        * suspicion of male homosexuality;
        * increase in fertility of IQ 110+ women;
        * drawdown of military and even naval commitments overseas;
        * preparation toward an opportunity to expel Chinese from Panama;
        * discouragement of recreational drug use;
        * retirement of female military and naval personnel from combat roles;
        * better security at the border; and
        * an end to demonization of and official discrimination against U.S. whites.

    So, yes, I believe that the far right can win, because it isn't very far.

    There are other points I'd personally like to see, of course, such as special refugee immigration status for African whites, such as a restoration of negro Segregation, and such as female-free juries, but those are harder to reach. The political process does not exist to deliver what I personally want, and anyway A123 is right: politics is about the achievable.

    And then the right will overreach and the pendulum will swing again, but that will be a problem for another generation.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, the Amish. There are some. They do it by getting out of the way of Leviathan, not by fighting it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  39. @Dumbo
    @TBeholder


    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug’s article…
     
    Meh. Moldbug (Yarvin) is just another little clever misinformer, it's pretty clear now.

    The idea that Zuckerberg and Bezos and other zillionaires are being somehow forced to be progressive is ridiculous.

    If there is a "higher power" above them, then it's Satan.

    Anyway, I have to admit that I didn't really understand well your obtuse Moldbug-wannabe prose, so maybe you were trying to say something else.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The idea that Zuckerberg and Bezos and other zillionaires are being somehow forced to be progressive is ridiculous.

    Not necessarily. The corporate sector has always been cowardly. They’ll go along with whatever the ruling ideology happens to be, whether it’s left or right, socially liberal or socially conservative.

    And even the largest and most powerful corporations are aware that the government could, if it chose, stomp them. So it’s in their interest to take out insurance by conforming to political positions favoured by the government of the day. Just as many small businesses used to consider it to be in their interests to pay protection money to racketeers.

    You also have to consider that even zillionaires are human. They want to be liked. They want to be popular. They want to be invited to the right cocktail parties. They want to be accepted by the social circles in which they move. They’re not immune from the normal human desire to gain social approval by social conformity.

    I’d say that the zillionaires and the elites probably vary quite a bit with some being True Believers, some being cowards, some being opportunists.

  40. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Dumbo


    Moldbug ... is just another little clever misinformer, it’s pretty clear now.
     
    Whether you agree with Unqualified Reservations or not, if you have read it and have not found it riveting, then you would be the first I know. Moldbug is the sole English-language Jewish philosopher ever, as far as I am aware, actually to make Kabbalah interesting.

    What do you mean by “misinformer,” other than that Moldbug tends to let his own cleverness carry him away? Do you refer to Borzoi Boskovic's interview of Moldbug? Or do you mean something else?

    Replies: @Dumbo

    Moldbug is too long-winded. Way back when he wrote a few interesting things at his UR but even then he badly needed an editor; reading his whole posts was a drag.

    I meant “disinformation”, sorry. Purposefully writing to deceive. To divert attention from one group to another. i.e. “the Cathedral” instead of the more obvious “Synagogue”.

    His latest texts (the few I’ve seen) are even worse, not even having the occasional brilliance of UR.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  41. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.
     
    Correct.

    To be honest discussion with any kind of committed ideologue (or anyone committed to a religious belief) is futile. The purpose of any kind of political activism is to target the normies, the majority who don't have rigid opinions. To try to persuade the normies to start thinking a little bit. You can't do that in an echo chamber. So joining echo chambers like Gab is an admission of defeat. It's an admission that you've given up trying to reach the normies, which means you've accepted defeat.

    It seems to me that the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups are moving more and more towards this position. They're accepting that they've lost so they're resorting to hiding out in right-wing chambers, or they're resorting to fantasies like separation.

    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?

    One might say that the surest way for the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups to embrace defeatism were to hearken to you!

    I do not say that, of course. I believe that hearkening to you would benefit many. However, regarding the utility of tradition—or, stronger put, reaction—you and I simply disagree.

    Debates over semantics are boring but I suppose that I will be boring for a moment. “Far right” is a transparent and not very clever pejorative. It isn’t even a useful descriptor, except in relation to the mad, self-destructive politics of the early-21st-century West.

    As far as going on to win is concerned, you and I are both old enough to have watched the political pendulum swing. U.S. political dynamics are peculiar in that they seem to leave little room for a third national party. The far right therefore wins by organizing a constituency the mainstream right must act to capture. Really, it’s a nice way to win, because the hotheads apply the pressure and then mundane, moderately corrupt but well-balanced politicians end up in actual charge of implementing the necessary policy.

    I am under no delusion that I am likely to get what I want out of the political process, but some or all of the following are achievable in a U.S. context as far as I know:

        * reduction in immigration;
        * strengthening of the family;
        * readmission of the non-Woke to the bureaucracy;
        * increase in import tariffs (for the U.S. is not Australia);
        * more realistic assessment of the proclivities of the negro race;
        * moderate pressure for U.S. Jews to be less hostile;
        * teaching of a patriotic narrative to young citizens;
        * steeper progressive taxation of the wealthiest 0.1 percent;
        * stronger local control of schools;
        * continuing local control of police;
        * restoration of free association to individuals and small businesses;
        * suspicion of male homosexuality;
        * increase in fertility of IQ 110+ women;
        * drawdown of military and even naval commitments overseas;
        * preparation toward an opportunity to expel Chinese from Panama;
        * discouragement of recreational drug use;
        * retirement of female military and naval personnel from combat roles;
        * better security at the border; and
        * an end to demonization of and official discrimination against U.S. whites.

    So, yes, I believe that the far right can win, because it isn’t very far.

    There are other points I’d personally like to see, of course, such as special refugee immigration status for African whites, such as a restoration of negro Segregation, and such as female-free juries, but those are harder to reach. The political process does not exist to deliver what I personally want, and anyway A123 is right: politics is about the achievable.

    And then the right will overreach and the pendulum will swing again, but that will be a problem for another generation.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Debates over semantics are boring but I suppose that I will be boring for a moment. “Far right” is a transparent and not very clever pejorative.
     
    I don't use it as a pejorative term. I use it as a catch-all term that embraces white nationalists, the dissident right, the traditionalist right and neo-reactionaries. I can't think of another suitable term to embrace all those groups. And they're all groups that do identify as very right-wing.
    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    As far as going on to win is concerned, you and I are both old enough to have watched the political pendulum swing.
     
    I'll be a bit provocative here. I haven't seen the political pendulum swing at all in my lifetime.

    The Economic Right gained control in the 70s and that control has never seriously been challenged. In fact the Economic Right is more firmly in control than ever. Since the 70s there has been no sign whatsoever of a swing of the pendulum back to the Left.

    The Social/Cultural Left started making gained in the late 50s. Since then their progress has been slow but relentless. The trend has been continuous and unchanging in favour of the The Social/Cultural Left.

    It's been the same in Britain and the same in Australia.

    It has never made any difference if the Republicans or the Democrats (or Labour or the Tories) are in government. The Economic Right remained in the driver's seat during the Bill Clinton and Obama presidencies. The progress of the Social/Cultural Left continued inexorably during the Reagan and Bush II and Trump presidencies.

    I don't believe there is a political pendulum. There's an Economic Right juggernaut and a Social/Cultural Left juggernaut and both have been (so far) unstoppable.
  42. Language is not serving us well on this point.

    … African whites …

    The word “Africa” has become unhelpfully ambiguous. Originally, the word referred more or less to Libya, whose longtime inhabitants are, of course, white.

    I meant, sub-Saharan whites, of course, including the Afrikaners. I did not have Libyans in mind!

    Anyway, special refugee immigration status for sub-Saharan whites is, regrettably, a stretch for the United States as presently constituted. The other listed goals are less contentious in the political center of the United States and, thus, are more achievable.

    Elites will resist, of course. They always do, and they usually win; but that should not make one shy from the fight.

  43. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?
     
    One might say that the surest way for the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups to embrace defeatism were to hearken to you!

    I do not say that, of course. I believe that hearkening to you would benefit many. However, regarding the utility of tradition—or, stronger put, reaction—you and I simply disagree.

    Debates over semantics are boring but I suppose that I will be boring for a moment. “Far right” is a transparent and not very clever pejorative. It isn't even a useful descriptor, except in relation to the mad, self-destructive politics of the early-21st-century West.

    As far as going on to win is concerned, you and I are both old enough to have watched the political pendulum swing. U.S. political dynamics are peculiar in that they seem to leave little room for a third national party. The far right therefore wins by organizing a constituency the mainstream right must act to capture. Really, it's a nice way to win, because the hotheads apply the pressure and then mundane, moderately corrupt but well-balanced politicians end up in actual charge of implementing the necessary policy.

    I am under no delusion that I am likely to get what I want out of the political process, but some or all of the following are achievable in a U.S. context as far as I know:

        * reduction in immigration;
        * strengthening of the family;
        * readmission of the non-Woke to the bureaucracy;
        * increase in import tariffs (for the U.S. is not Australia);
        * more realistic assessment of the proclivities of the negro race;
        * moderate pressure for U.S. Jews to be less hostile;
        * teaching of a patriotic narrative to young citizens;
        * steeper progressive taxation of the wealthiest 0.1 percent;
        * stronger local control of schools;
        * continuing local control of police;
        * restoration of free association to individuals and small businesses;
        * suspicion of male homosexuality;
        * increase in fertility of IQ 110+ women;
        * drawdown of military and even naval commitments overseas;
        * preparation toward an opportunity to expel Chinese from Panama;
        * discouragement of recreational drug use;
        * retirement of female military and naval personnel from combat roles;
        * better security at the border; and
        * an end to demonization of and official discrimination against U.S. whites.

    So, yes, I believe that the far right can win, because it isn't very far.

    There are other points I'd personally like to see, of course, such as special refugee immigration status for African whites, such as a restoration of negro Segregation, and such as female-free juries, but those are harder to reach. The political process does not exist to deliver what I personally want, and anyway A123 is right: politics is about the achievable.

    And then the right will overreach and the pendulum will swing again, but that will be a problem for another generation.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    Debates over semantics are boring but I suppose that I will be boring for a moment. “Far right” is a transparent and not very clever pejorative.

    I don’t use it as a pejorative term. I use it as a catch-all term that embraces white nationalists, the dissident right, the traditionalist right and neo-reactionaries. I can’t think of another suitable term to embrace all those groups. And they’re all groups that do identify as very right-wing.

  44. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?
     
    One might say that the surest way for the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups to embrace defeatism were to hearken to you!

    I do not say that, of course. I believe that hearkening to you would benefit many. However, regarding the utility of tradition—or, stronger put, reaction—you and I simply disagree.

    Debates over semantics are boring but I suppose that I will be boring for a moment. “Far right” is a transparent and not very clever pejorative. It isn't even a useful descriptor, except in relation to the mad, self-destructive politics of the early-21st-century West.

    As far as going on to win is concerned, you and I are both old enough to have watched the political pendulum swing. U.S. political dynamics are peculiar in that they seem to leave little room for a third national party. The far right therefore wins by organizing a constituency the mainstream right must act to capture. Really, it's a nice way to win, because the hotheads apply the pressure and then mundane, moderately corrupt but well-balanced politicians end up in actual charge of implementing the necessary policy.

    I am under no delusion that I am likely to get what I want out of the political process, but some or all of the following are achievable in a U.S. context as far as I know:

        * reduction in immigration;
        * strengthening of the family;
        * readmission of the non-Woke to the bureaucracy;
        * increase in import tariffs (for the U.S. is not Australia);
        * more realistic assessment of the proclivities of the negro race;
        * moderate pressure for U.S. Jews to be less hostile;
        * teaching of a patriotic narrative to young citizens;
        * steeper progressive taxation of the wealthiest 0.1 percent;
        * stronger local control of schools;
        * continuing local control of police;
        * restoration of free association to individuals and small businesses;
        * suspicion of male homosexuality;
        * increase in fertility of IQ 110+ women;
        * drawdown of military and even naval commitments overseas;
        * preparation toward an opportunity to expel Chinese from Panama;
        * discouragement of recreational drug use;
        * retirement of female military and naval personnel from combat roles;
        * better security at the border; and
        * an end to demonization of and official discrimination against U.S. whites.

    So, yes, I believe that the far right can win, because it isn't very far.

    There are other points I'd personally like to see, of course, such as special refugee immigration status for African whites, such as a restoration of negro Segregation, and such as female-free juries, but those are harder to reach. The political process does not exist to deliver what I personally want, and anyway A123 is right: politics is about the achievable.

    And then the right will overreach and the pendulum will swing again, but that will be a problem for another generation.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    As far as going on to win is concerned, you and I are both old enough to have watched the political pendulum swing.

    I’ll be a bit provocative here. I haven’t seen the political pendulum swing at all in my lifetime.

    The Economic Right gained control in the 70s and that control has never seriously been challenged. In fact the Economic Right is more firmly in control than ever. Since the 70s there has been no sign whatsoever of a swing of the pendulum back to the Left.

    The Social/Cultural Left started making gained in the late 50s. Since then their progress has been slow but relentless. The trend has been continuous and unchanging in favour of the The Social/Cultural Left.

    It’s been the same in Britain and the same in Australia.

    It has never made any difference if the Republicans or the Democrats (or Labour or the Tories) are in government. The Economic Right remained in the driver’s seat during the Bill Clinton and Obama presidencies. The progress of the Social/Cultural Left continued inexorably during the Reagan and Bush II and Trump presidencies.

    I don’t believe there is a political pendulum. There’s an Economic Right juggernaut and a Social/Cultural Left juggernaut and both have been (so far) unstoppable.

    • Agree: mc23
  45. @Gab User
    Why'd you leave Gab, Audacious?

    Replies: @Nodwink, @Nikolai Vladivostok, @Audacious Epigone

    Social media is a baneful thing in my view. Steve Sailer said it was the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    Social media is a baneful thing in my view. Steve Sailer said it was the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls.
     
    I agree. And it's not because social media is controlled by a few oligarchs with political agendas. The evil of social media is inherent in the very nature of the thing.

    Breaking the power of those oligarchs might bring about a very marginal improvement but social media will always be evil. It was a terrible idea right from the start.
  46. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    @Triteleia Laxa

    On Steve's blog the other day, a survey showed that 9% of men and 8% of women thought they could beat a gorilla in an unarmed fight.
    A certain proportion of respondents to any survey will either misunderstand the question or take the piss. This percentage might not be stable as some demographics may do this more than others.

    Replies: @A123, @TBeholder, @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    Yeah I saw that. Similar percentages said they could be an elephant and a grizzly, animals that are even more formidable than gorillas!

  47. @Audacious Epigone
    @Gab User

    Social media is a baneful thing in my view. Steve Sailer said it was the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Social media is a baneful thing in my view. Steve Sailer said it was the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls.

    I agree. And it’s not because social media is controlled by a few oligarchs with political agendas. The evil of social media is inherent in the very nature of the thing.

    Breaking the power of those oligarchs might bring about a very marginal improvement but social media will always be evil. It was a terrible idea right from the start.

  48. @TBeholder
    @Dumbo

    Big tech has no power at all. See linked Moldbug's article… but it's fairly obvious just from human nature.
    So, Facehug has inquisition that watches posts for compliance with the latest bullas of the ruling theocracy, no matter how ridiculous. Even purging mentions of a certain math concept. But this obviously does not align with the profit, i.e. comes at the expense thereof. Because those happy about it are vocal minority, and all claims to the contrary are pure gaslighting: otherwise "Fembusters" and "Soylo" would be super-blockbusters, and there won't be any demand for banning mentions of Benford's Law in the first place! All agreed? Moving on.
    This situation leaves us with two major possibilities:
    A. Zuck wants to do this, i.e. he willingly sacrifices his profit for virtue as a True Believer. It's in his power.
    B. Zuck does not want to do this, at least this specific way, i.e. he is coerced. It's not his power, he is forced to be a conduit of another's power.

    Now, the thing about a human brain is, it can't help but to reinterpret and re-prioritize. It's a core function. It's inevitable.
    Thus everyone has a personal idea of where exactly to go right now. The crowd does not naturally goosestep, it naturally diffuses, strays and wanders around. Those who follow are the ones unable or unwilling to go their own way (and maybe lead others) for some reason. Many are just lazy, but then they won't go anywhere at all if it was entirely up to them, would they?
    Which is why any mass movement is naturally non-homogenous. Even tumblrinas in the natural habitat tend toward "Oppression Olympics", not some magic immutable order.
    Any True Believer with power and will to promote a movement will naturally start or promote "his own thing", a specific sect — perhaps not very deviant from mainstream, but chosen or built as best fit for the personal tastes of its patron. Did you ever see anything like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc brands of Progressive neo-Puritanism? Me neither. Only minor variations in zeal.
    But if not — believers or not, they are not free to run "their thing" the way they want. They must ape someone else. The choir boys are far downstream from the real Bishops, let alone Cardinals.

    Replies: @Nicholas R. Jeelvy, @Dumbo, @anon, @Audacious Epigone

    Facebook’s market cap has nearly tripled since Trump won the GOP nomination and the censoring began in earnest. It is worth nearly $1 trillion now. The tech companies can destroy any political figure they want to.

  49. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Discussion with a committed Wokist is futile.
     
    Correct.

    To be honest discussion with any kind of committed ideologue (or anyone committed to a religious belief) is futile. The purpose of any kind of political activism is to target the normies, the majority who don't have rigid opinions. To try to persuade the normies to start thinking a little bit. You can't do that in an echo chamber. So joining echo chambers like Gab is an admission of defeat. It's an admission that you've given up trying to reach the normies, which means you've accepted defeat.

    It seems to me that the dissident right and other far right and traditionalist groups are moving more and more towards this position. They're accepting that they've lost so they're resorting to hiding out in right-wing chambers, or they're resorting to fantasies like separation.

    Is there any example of a political movement that has embraced defeatism and then gone on to win?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, the Amish. There are some. They do it by getting out of the way of Leviathan, not by fighting it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, the Amish. There are some. They do it by getting out of the way of Leviathan, not by fighting it.
     
    That's been a sound strategy for them so far. It's worked because they've been totally apolitical and they've been perceived as being totally apolitical.

    I don't think any group that is perceived as being politically motivated would get away with it. For example Evangelical Christians are perceived by the Cultural Left as being very political indeed. Any group that appeared to have even the slightest connection to white nationalism would also be perceived by the Cultural Left as being very political indeed.
  50. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, the Amish. There are some. They do it by getting out of the way of Leviathan, not by fighting it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, the Amish. There are some. They do it by getting out of the way of Leviathan, not by fighting it.

    That’s been a sound strategy for them so far. It’s worked because they’ve been totally apolitical and they’ve been perceived as being totally apolitical.

    I don’t think any group that is perceived as being politically motivated would get away with it. For example Evangelical Christians are perceived by the Cultural Left as being very political indeed. Any group that appeared to have even the slightest connection to white nationalism would also be perceived by the Cultural Left as being very political indeed.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS