RSSAh, I see. You were complaining that in the course of trying to describe how liberals think I used the sort of language liberals might use. OK, sure, guilty as charged I guess.
I’ll just ask one question: is affirmative action good for white people?
Huh? Of course not! I don’t understand why you are even asking that.
(Also, I am pretty sure there are at least a few people who live in Boston but nevertheless do not understand how liberals think).
How? You ought to have quoted that part.Replies: @40 Lashes Less One, @Currahee, @Anon, @jb
“Oppenheimer” still easily met the diversity requirements for Best Picture.
“Oppenheimer” still easily met the diversity requirements for Best Picture.
It cleared one standard for offscreen hiring because nearly a dozen women held senior positions on the crew, including costume designer, set designer, editor and head hairstylist. At least one senior role was filled by someone from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group: the head of makeup, Luisa Abel, who is Hispanic.
Even without those hiring decisions, “Oppenheimer” would have qualified. That is because its studio, Universal, has created in-house programs, in-career training and audience development that help satisfy the rules for almost every picture it makes.
Since 2021, Universal has operated an extensive crew training program for underrepresented individuals. The majority of Universal movies participate, and “Oppenheimer” was no exception.
Universal, more so than some other studios, also has a diverse marketing and distribution team, including Dwight Caines, the studio’s president of domestic marketing, who is Black. (All of his counterparts at other major studios are white.)
And one more thing. Ross often ends his his weekly subscriber-only (i.e., online only) newsletter with links to content considerably more based than anything he writes himself. For example, at the end of a meditation on Dune and decadence, he links to:
Wokeness is actually two things
Put simply, the people who are into woke ideas about gender and race are not the same as the people who are into woke ideas just about race, even if their political aims sometimes overlap. And these two groups have wildly different migration and fertility patterns. Gender wokeness is on the way out because the people who are attracted to gender wokeness are on the way out, given that their birth rates are so far below replacement. Meanwhile, race wokeness (of a kind) is on the rise because of the large and rapid demographic changes currently taking place in the West.
Ross is the only writer I’m aware of at a major American newpaper who has a real interest in demographics and insightful things to say about it.
What part of what I said do you think is incorrect? Do you really believe that huge numbers of ordinary run-of-the-mill white liberals, in their own heads, are thinking “My goal is to marginalize whites in their own countries”? Really? Just saying that out loud should be enough to convince you that the idea is nonsense. As I said, the policies liberals support may have the consequence of marginalizing whites in their own countries, but that’s an unintended consequence, it isn’t something liberals themselves ever think about or care about. They just want to feel like they’re being good people. (As does everyone here I would hope, however illiberal your politics might be).
I would say "believes they argue in good faith" is more accurate.Some definitions of "good faith" to consider whether or not "almost everybody" achieves this. Also "bad faith" since this is not a strict dichotomy. There are levels.https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf
Almost everybody argues in good faith.
My experience arguing with liberals is "good faith" does not at all hold by that standard. And "bad faith" all too often does. An important aspect of this is whether an argument is originated by the liberal or is responsive to an opposed argument. Most people behave worse in the latter case. And a fatal flaw of liberals these days is most live in a bubble and are not used to being challenged on their views.Another version.
GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person's dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.
...
BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity, or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will.
Those definitions are less clear cut. I tend to believe the "believes it" aspect holds (which I think is most of your point). While the aspect relating to "factual" and willingness to prove/disprove does not.What do you think?Replies: @jb, @Harry Baldwin
A bad faith argument boils down to whether the arguer genuinely believes the claim they’re making.
...
A bad faith argument is a position that can be factually disproved, yet its proponent continues to adhere to it. If the individual knows they are being dishonest or unfair with their position, it’s a bad faith argument.
...
A good faith argument is an argument that’s honest, fair, and genuinely considers the opponent’s perspective. An argument doesn’t have to be factual or even logical to be made in good faith—the arguer’s intent is what makes a good faith argument.
...
A good faith argument is an honest position. When an individual is open to discussing their position and adapting it when presented with facts that disprove their original claim, the position is a good faith argument.
I was thinking more of the second definition: genuinely believing that the claim you are making is true. I should qualify this though, as people who have something to gain by lying often lie. E.g., the politician who makes promises he has no intention of fulfilling, or the corporate drone keeping his head down and unenthusiastically mouthing the proper words. But when people enthusiastically endorse ideas even when they don’t have to, I think they generally mean it. That doesn’t mean they actually understand their own thinking or that of their opponents, or that their arguments make sense, or that they know anything about bubbles or motivated reasoning, or that they are civil and “respectful of the other person’s dignity”, or any of that. It just means that in their own minds they believe that they are being honest, that the words that are coming out of their mouths are true. In this sense I think that most of the Woke argue in good faith. (Although now that I think about it, the percentage of insincerely woke status seekers in academia may not be trivial. Hard to know).
You know, now that I think about it, I do know someone like that. A Jewish friend I’ve know since grad school, who is kind of unusual for a liberal in that he is willing to talk about anything. He doesn’t come right out and say he thinks negros aren’t smart (and yes, he uses that word), but he knows I think that, and he has an almost prurient interest in black crime. He says he supports affirmative action because negros are such sad people (again, his words!), and he doesn’t see any threat to people like him. He has a very odd personality though, and I’ve always assumed he was anomalous, but maybe not!
No offense to jb, but this has always been the argument for Affirmative Action. If this needs explication, it makes me wonder what everyone else here thought they were arguing with. Singling this out for special attention in 2024 is lightyears behind the curve.Replies: @jb
From iSteve commenter jb:
You are absolutely right of course, but as the comments here (and in many other forums) make clear, there are a lot of people on the “Dissident Right” who make unbelievably obtuse and counterproductive arguments like “liberals support affirmative action because they hate white people and want to see them genocided”. Those are the people I am arguing with. They are a boat anchor for the entire movement (such as it is).
It's not lazy to think that they hate White people if they are constantly telling you that they hate White people (or if they are White, that they hate "the wrong kind of White people"). Unless of course "lazy" is just some kind of weird euphemism for Ockham's Razor.
… how I think liberal affirmative action supporters actually justify AA in their own heads (as opposed to the lazy “it must be because they hate white people” thinking I see so often in forums like this): …
The idea that your enemies don’t believe what they say they believe is crippling. Almost everybody argues in good faith.
I would say "believes they argue in good faith" is more accurate.Some definitions of "good faith" to consider whether or not "almost everybody" achieves this. Also "bad faith" since this is not a strict dichotomy. There are levels.https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf
Almost everybody argues in good faith.
My experience arguing with liberals is "good faith" does not at all hold by that standard. And "bad faith" all too often does. An important aspect of this is whether an argument is originated by the liberal or is responsive to an opposed argument. Most people behave worse in the latter case. And a fatal flaw of liberals these days is most live in a bubble and are not used to being challenged on their views.Another version.
GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person's dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.
...
BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity, or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will.
Those definitions are less clear cut. I tend to believe the "believes it" aspect holds (which I think is most of your point). While the aspect relating to "factual" and willingness to prove/disprove does not.What do you think?Replies: @jb, @Harry Baldwin
A bad faith argument boils down to whether the arguer genuinely believes the claim they’re making.
...
A bad faith argument is a position that can be factually disproved, yet its proponent continues to adhere to it. If the individual knows they are being dishonest or unfair with their position, it’s a bad faith argument.
...
A good faith argument is an argument that’s honest, fair, and genuinely considers the opponent’s perspective. An argument doesn’t have to be factual or even logical to be made in good faith—the arguer’s intent is what makes a good faith argument.
...
A good faith argument is an honest position. When an individual is open to discussing their position and adapting it when presented with facts that disprove their original claim, the position is a good faith argument.
It isn’t that simple, but yes, it’s that too, and that probably should be on the list. If I’d know Steve was going to promote my comment to a blog post I’d have thought about it more carefully, and there would have been something about the liberal sense of inherited guilt, the sense that white people, collectively, have an obligation to make amends to black people, collectively, for sins that other white people committed against other black people in the past. This is why it can feel right to take money and opportunities from the white child of an impoverished single white immigrant mother, whose people never had anything to do with American slavery, and give them to the black child of a wealthy black immigrant doctor, whose people never suffered from American slavery. It’s because until the world is made right, all white people owe all black people. It’s all emotion though — I don’t think many liberals would own up to believing in collective inherited guilt.
Do you actually know any liberals Mike? (I’m talking about ordinary garden variety liberals here, as opposed to the hard core Woke). They do not hate white people, and they do not want to marginalize whites in their own countries. What they want show compassion and decency and humanity towards all who need it. This may have the effect of marginalizing whites in their own countries, but that isn’t something they think about or care about. It certainly isn’t something they see, in their own heads, as a goal. Just because something matters to you it doesn’t mean it matters to everyone; if you don’t understand that you have no hope of reaching those who are not already on your side. (If that’s something you care about, which, depressingly, I’m pretty sure you don’t).
The main thing about Ross Douthat is that he is one of the small number of nominally “conservative” opinion writers that the New York Times — the most influential newspaper among American elites — has historically employed in the name of “balance”. (To be fair, I don’t think the desire for ideological balance has been entirely insincere, although I don’t know how long we will continue to see it. The old timers at the Times seem to be somewhat flummoxed and intimidated by the hard core leftism of their woke junior staffers, who do not want balance). Beyond that Douthat is a believing conservative Catholic, and regularly writes on social issues from that point of view (although he spends far too much time focusing on the internal politics of the Catholic Church), which makes him an odd duck indeed. Beyond even that though, more than anyone else at the Times he sometimes edges towards forbidden territory. It’s suspected that he is an iSteve reader, although he certainly would never directly reference Steve, and that he knows more than he lets on. He’s very careful though, and appears to want very much to keep his high profile position at the Times, rather than going the way of Bari Weiss or James Bennet. It will be interesting to see if he can.
Hard to hear because it’s not true. If slavery had never been established in America, if no African had ever set foot on its shores, America would still have ended up as a prosperous industrialized nation. If you don’t believe this, look at Canada, which until recently had few blacks. Or Australia, which had a whites-only policy, and which never got much work out of its native aborigines. White people have indeed oppressed blacks in the past, which is unfortunate, but white people have never needed black people around in order to be successful.
Black people, OTOH, always sink to the bottom of the barrel, no matter where they are, inside of Africa or outside. They lose out to Europeans. They lose out to Arabs. They lose out to Asians. There is no country on Earth where blacks successfully compete against non-blacks without some form of affirmative action. Now that’s something that will be hard for some folks to hear!
I previously described how I think liberal affirmative action supporters actually justify AA in their own heads (as opposed to the lazy “it must be because they hate white people” thinking I see so often in forums like this). I’m going to repeat my comment here, with an additional point, 4a to clarify something I wasn’t clear on before:
1. We know that blacks are intrinsically just as smart as other races. (This is revealed truth. It must be so. It would be just awful if it weren’t!).
2. And yet blacks do poorly on all measures of cognitive ability. (The “achievement gap”).
3. Therefore something must be holding them down. (The legacy of racism. Stereotype threat. Socioeconomic status. Lack of self esteem. Something!).
4. The solution is affirmative action. If we can artificially place enough blacks in high positions that they do not appear qualified for but deep down really are (see point 1) then eventually they will reach a critical mass that allows them to overcome whatever is holding them down.
4a. There is no downside to affirmative action! Because we know that blacks are just as smart as whites, it follows that whatever their test scores might seem to indicate, the highest scoring blacks are intrinsically just as capable as the highest scoring whites, and are therefore guaranteed to be every bit as competent when handed positions as doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, air traffic controllers, etc. Any evidence that suggests otherwise (including the evidence of your own lying eyes) has to be wrong somehow.
5. If it hasn’t worked yet that just means we haven’t been affirming hard enough. (We need to go back up the mountain again — this time Jesus will come for sure).
I wonder what those liberal AA supporters think when they are on the operating table and discover that their surgeon is a diversity hire.
I previously described how I think liberal affirmative action supporters actually justify AA in their own heads
I’ve seen plenty of warnings in the media that the elimination of affirmative action would result in a sharp decrease in the percentage of blacks at elite universities, and this seems pretty close to an explicit acknowledgement that right now blacks don’t have what it takes to compete on even terms. It’s that “right now” that’s the key though. It’s important to try to understand what your opponents are actually thinking, rather than giving in to the temptation to put unflattering strawman arguments into their heads, so here’s what I think liberals are actually thinking on affirmative action:
1. We know that blacks are intrinsically just as smart as other races. (This is revealed truth. It must be so. It would be just awful if it weren’t!).
2. And yet blacks do poorly on all measures of cognitive ability. (The “achievement gap”).
3. Therefore something must be holding them down. (The legacy of racism. Stereotype threat. Socioeconomic status. Lack of self esteem. Something!).
4. The solution is affirmative action. If we can artificially place enough blacks in high positions that they do not appear qualified for but deep down really are (see point 1) then eventually they will reach a critical mass that allows them to overcome whatever is holding them down.
5. If it hasn’t worked yet that just means we haven’t been affirming hard enough. (We need to go back up the mountain again — this time Jesus will come for sure).
OT, but I noticed that Ross Douthat’s most recent op-ed uses the term “anti-whiteness”, and I suddenly wondered how often that term had appeared in the New York Times. It turned out to be four times, all within the past seven years: three by Ross, who uses the term about the same way we would use it here, and once, dismissively, by Brent Staples, in a piece where he addresses the critically pressing issue of the treatment of blacks in pre-Civil Rights newspapers.
Of course I had to Google “anti-blackness” next, but Google has stopped making it easy to count articles, and I’m not even going to try. But good for Ross: whatever else you might think of him, he is, however tentatively, going there.
But he doesn't go too far.
...Of course I had to Google “anti-blackness” next, but Google has stopped making it easy to count articles, and I’m not even going to try. But good for Ross: whatever else you might think of him, he is, however tentatively, going there.
Heinlein smuggles into Moon a lot of propaganda for polyamory via his narrator…
I read a lot of science fiction when I was young, and as a typical straight teenage boy I found quite a lot to titillate me. (I very distinctly remember reading The Puppet Masters and getting a kick out of all the nakedness). At the time I assumed that the authors were simply exploring alternative sexual possibilities the same way they explored alternative technologies or alternative social structures or alternative histories and so on. That seemed to me the whole point of science fiction: exploring all the possible ways that things could be different. I gradually noticed though cases where authors would repeat the same distinctively odd scenarios in different stories, and I eventually came to realize that in many (most?) cases the authors were simply using the narrative freedom of science fiction to safely smuggle their own personal sexual fetishes into their their work.
Also: Naked? With Strangers? In Europe, It’s How You Relax at the Spa.
Steve, when you quote other people’s work you should really remember to add a link. Do you want to end up like Claudine Gay?
Wait, students with a perfect 1600 on the SAT only average 0.43 better GPA than those with a mediocre 1200? That says a lot about college grade inflation!
Agreed. Another factor is choice of major. Though using first year GPA helps decrease that effect.
Wait, students with a perfect 1600 on the SAT only average 0.43 better GPA than those with a mediocre 1200? That says a lot about college grade inflation!
Google says they are going to fix the problem, but what that almost certainly means is that they are going to try to tune their AIs to stop producing woke output when the output is embarrassingly bad, but continue producing woke output when the badness is less obvious.
Also, just for reference, the New York Post reports on this here and here.
Eh, the victims weren’t black so it wasn’t that important.
What puzzles me is a story from a couple years back where a self-declared white supremacist traveled to New York City for the express purpose of killing black people and actually killed a random black man on the street. I was expecting it to be huge, but the story never went anywhere and I don’t know why. Maybe because even for the woke it’s hard to take seriously anyone who tries to start a race war with a sword?
I don’t think this is a recent thing. The sex of dogs isn’t always immediately obvious, and it seems to me that it’s always been the case that if I called a female dog “he” the owner would inform me (in a friendly way) that the dog was in fact a “she”. I don’t think this has anything to do with political correctness, just wanting to get the facts straight.
And it makes perfect sense. If the dog is part of the family, and the owner sees the dog as a “she”, then naturally it’s going to bother him if you use the wrong pronoun. It would also bother him — although probably a lot more! — if you referred to his tomboyish daughter as “he”.
Hey, Canada may not be better than Punjab anymore, but it’s still better than Niger!
Okay. I suppose that’s no worse than the Star Wars space slugs I just looked up.
What I want to know is what the sand worms are eating when they aren’t eating insufficiently arhythmic Freman. (It’s probably in the books somewhere, but I only managed to get through the first, and that was many years ago).
Just curious: are you claiming that there is an organized cabal of Jews somewhere making decisions and controlling things for the benefit of the Jews? That’s batshit crazy — there are much simpler and more plausible explanations that don’t involve the Elders of Zion — but I want to know if that’s what you are actually thinking.
What don't they control?They control all finance and information. Check!
It’s sort of the Woke version of “the Jews control everything”.
I was wondering if anybody was going to bite! 🙂
There is a huge difference between “disproportionately influential” (which Jews clearly are) and “controls everything” (which implies some sort of cabal of Jews making decisions and giving orders as Jews). The former is true and unsurprising, given high Jewish IQs. The latter is idiotic. (David Cole has your number Richard). Jewish Leftists and non-Jewish Leftists are interchangeable. They belong to the same organizations; they think and act in lockstep; they even marry each other (e.g., A. G. Sulzberger: 1/4 Jewish, 3/4 liberal Protestant). There is no real distinction between them. Modern woke Leftism has it’s roots more in liberal Protestantism than in Judaism. Any problem you have with Jewish Leftists you also have with non-Jewish Leftists, which means it isn’t the Jews that are the problem, it’s the Left. (And that’s leaving aside all the Jews who aren’t Leftists, but who still get tagged and alienated when you say the problem is “the Jews” rather than “the Left”. God, the whole Jew thing is just so damn stupid…).
I can’t believe there are people out there who are dumb enough to believe that there are other people out there who are in charge of excluding blacks and “centering whiteness”. It’s sort of the Woke version of “the Jews control everything”.
What don't they control?They control all finance and information. Check!
It’s sort of the Woke version of “the Jews control everything”.
If you think it's a coin toss between Haley and Trump there's something wrong with you.
Until a little while ago I was rooting for the Fat One, but now that DeSantis is out of the race and the choice is Trump or Haley I no longer really care. (Trump and Haley are both bad, although in entirely different ways. With DeSantis there was at least possibility).
Trump is an incompetent narcissistic lying psychopath who is incapable of delivering on his promises (and would be even if he could avoid being hogtied by legal problems), whose abhorrent personality has alienated millions of potentially reachable voters and pushed them into the arms of the enemy, and who I simply do not trust not to do something really terrible if some crisis pushes his buttons right. That’s bad.
You are right that Haley is an old school militaristic corporativist Conservatism Inc. Republican, and that’s bad too. But it’s possible the party is already too far gone towards nationalism for her to pull it back, and maybe she might recognize this and decide to ride the new wave. Maybe. But at least she is a normal person (at least a normal for a politician). I can’t emphasize enough how big a problem I think Trump’s crazy has been for our side! Yes, he kicked the door open, but after that I’m not sure he hasn’t done more harm than good.
Someone who delivered the Supreme Court to the right for the first time in decades. That's more than all other Republicans.Replies: @HA
Trump is
Until a little while ago I was rooting for the Fat One, but now that DeSantis is out of the race and the choice is Trump or Haley I no longer really care. (Trump and Haley are both bad, although in entirely different ways. With DeSantis there was at least possibility).
If you think it's a coin toss between Haley and Trump there's something wrong with you.
Until a little while ago I was rooting for the Fat One, but now that DeSantis is out of the race and the choice is Trump or Haley I no longer really care. (Trump and Haley are both bad, although in entirely different ways. With DeSantis there was at least possibility).
Ornithologist Richard Prum argues exactly that in his book The Evolution of Beauty, which makes the case that sexual selection is independent of — and often acts counter to — natural selection (i.e., selection for advantageous traits), and is in fact driven by the aesthetic sensibilities of animals. I find his argument quite persuasive, and I recommend the book.
Hitler was an unmitigated disaster on all fronts, but much of the harm he did has faded as the victims have passed on, while the harm he did in helping to “discredit” eugenics persists unabated.
There were other factors of course. If you are opposed to involuntary sterilization of stupid people, OK, fine, let’s not do that. But without Hitler, I can imagine an alternative timeline where eugenic thinking is just part of the accepted conventional wisdom. Where smart, successful people face friendly social pressure to have big families. Where it’s just common sense that people who can’t afford to have children should be discouraged from having them. Where the media seeks out and celebrates brilliant children of brilliant parents, and says “See!” We were actually headed that way at the beginning of the 20th century, when eugenics was quite popular among thinking people. Instead, the society we live in makes it difficult for successful people to support children, celebrates those who don’t have any for “saving the planet”, while subsiding reproduction in the bottom tier because Social Justice. Thanks Adolf!
Out of curiosity, what happens if you try Charles Murray? I’m wondering where the cutoff is.
Out of curiosity, is this going to be available on Amazon? You don’t seem to be banned, plus the dropdown suggests that people are looking for Noticing there.
Speaking of whiteness, from Focus Features, coming this March:
The American Society of Magical Negroes.
From the trailer it looks to be every bit as awful as you would think, in exactly the way you would think. But maybe, just maybe, it can be a step towards the much needed rehabilitation of the word “negro”. Much needed because in the coming decades we are going to really need a word that unambiguously says “sub-Saharan”.
If someone asks me to define Woke (some people seem to consider this a “gotcha” question) I have an easy enough answer: the belief that all of the world’s problems are due to oppression and nothing else. And as long as we are keeping things abstract I can elaborate with talk of Cultural Marxism and so on. But if asked for specific examples of wrongheaded Woke ideas, pretty much everything I can think of has to do with race or gender, and I worry that this makes me look kind of narrow, like I’m the one who is obsessed race and gender. I.e., like a stereotypical old fashioned bigot, albeit a bit more educated.
So is that really it? Can everything consequential that Woke ideology has to say about the world be binned into race and gender? I guess there are other concerns, e.g., “ableism”, but the main focus there seems to be extending the list of oppressions to the greatest degree possible, just to emphasize the pervasiveness of Oppression. Nobody actually seems all that fired up by such isms, and nothing that is being proposed to remedy them is of any great consequence. They’re sideshows, while race and gender fully occupy center stage. (I can remember someone once referencing his “tall privilege” in a conversation, but it seemed pro forma, since it came up while he was looking for ways to explain white privilege to me. I doubt he saw it as an injustice that cried out to the heavens for redress). So am I missing something, or are race and gender really the whole show?
Short-Shaming
Why is discrimination against the short considered not only tolerable, but also amusing? In an era constantly on the lookout for prejudices to denounce, this obvious one gets a pass.
The main reason our culture doesn’t denounce short-shaming is highly revealing about the essential nature of wokeness.
(…)
It’s striking that height prejudice isn’t demonized today, even though it has disparate impact on immigrant ethnicities. (…) So height discrimination benefits whites.
However, most concerns in the U.S. about racial inequality focus upon blacks versus whites, and black men, at a little over 5’9″, are almost as tall as white men.
(…)
An awareness of heightism first emerged in the early 1970s. The word “sexism” first appeared in print in 1968, and “heightism” naturally followed in 1971.
On the other hand, enthusiasm for deploring heightism has largely faded.
Why is heightism barely a term in 2019? Because it is more often women discriminating against men over height than men discriminating against women.
(…)
Criticizing women’s heightism seems like sexism.
Our culture has increasingly lost interest in general principles and instead thinks, like Stalin, in terms of “Who? Whom?” Punching down at short men is fine these days because they are men, and thus are assumed to deserve to be whomed.
I’m short, and I never even made an effort at basketball, my sport was gymnastics. Muggsy Bogues would have been an astonishing gymnast!
Haha. I always enter tags by hand, including the blockquote tag, so I always ignored those buttons, and I never even noticed what the fourth one does.
Thanks for the link! However it looks like WordPress allows you to customize MORE blocks, which I couldn’t get to work on Unz, so it’s not quite the same.
Ah, I missed that. What’s the markup for the fold anyway? Is it specific to unz.com, or is it standard HTML that can be used elsewhere?
I have to say that bit was funnier than 99.9% of SNL. (Take that however you like). Part of the joke was that “Dr. Hattie Davis” is not a real person, just a character Michael Che invented to prank Colin Jost and make him even more uncomfortable telling Che’s racist jokes. (“The woman marched with King!”).
I thought everything in The Economist was behind a paywall, but this article doesn’t seem to be, and I don’t see any notes saying “You have X free articles left”. Does The Economist routinely make some articles open access?
I’m biracial but was raised primarily by my mom, who is White and, honestly, not a reliable ally. …
My mom is genuinely so out of touch that during one visit to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, she stopped random Black people to apologize … for … slavery? Oppression? Her outfit? I’m still not sure. (But I am certain that the memory remains just as excruciating for me.)
Just imagine the organic White joy this piece must have given her mother!
I know, it’s as annoying as hell innit? I ended up joining through my Google account just so I could view the threads, but no way I’m posting anything. Musk, I have to say, is an awesomely brilliant bonehead!
Easy enough to Google it, but yeah, post the link.
The logic of Woke censorship is very similar to the logic of historical censorship by the Catholic Church (e.g., the Index of Forbidden Books), and it actually makes a fair amount of sense. It goes like this: The truth of our doctrines is obvious and undeniable, in the same way that it is obvious and undeniable that 1+1=2. Only the foolish could be pursuaded otherwise! If a writer or a social movement were successful in pursuading the foolish that 1+1 did not equal 2 it would lead the foolish to do things that would cause great harm to the foolish themselves and to society as a whole; therefore suppressing such writers or social movements is always justified, as their words can only lead to harm, never to good.
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? It’s hard for me to think of realistic examples of ideas so dangerous that I personally would want to suppress them (denying that 1+1=2 doesn’t really cut it for me), but if you are convinced that wrong thinking can send people to Hell, or turn them into a Nazi zombies, suppression really does seem warranted. (I am reminded of a capsule description I saw somewhere of Herbert Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance, which essentially went “A world in which the Holocaust is possible is a world in which it is too dangerous to allow conservatives to have freedom of speech”).
No, it's not. The logic of the (old) Holy Office was that error has no rights. The logic of Woke censorship is more like, those we hate don't have rights. There is no doctrine or intellectual foundation the woke are at pains to defend. Their censorship is ad hoc and their instrument is blunt, shouting speakers down from the podium by protest, and such.
The logic of Woke censorship is very similar to the logic of historical censorship by the Catholic Church (e.g., the Index of Forbidden Books), and it actually makes a fair amount of sense.
Ugh. It looks like one has to know which “Show replies” buttons to press, to read this discussion.
The Twitter user interface is pretty useless. Way back in the 90s I was active on Usenet, which served a function similar to that of Twitter (i.e., basically a giant universal chat room), and I have to say Usenet was superior to Twitter in a number of important ways. For example, rather than being a single space, Usenet actually consisted of a large number of separate chat rooms (newsgroups), so you could focus a discussion on a particular subject; however if appropriate it was also possible to spread a single discussion across multiple newsgroups via crossposting.
The newsreader I used was trn, which was in some ways very primitive, having a text-based rather than graphical user interface. Yet despite this limitation trn, because it was a threaded news client, was able to effectively display large portions of the discussion tree, so you could see at a glance which posts had the most replies, and how deep the discussion went. I really haven’t seen anything that sophisticated since. Of course you had to learn a large number of keystroke commands to use trn effectively, and given how much the Internet has dumbed down since the early days I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that nobody has tried to match its functionality.
(BTW, although most of the discussion that took place on Usenet has moved to various web forums, including Twitter, Usenet is still active. It can be accessed through Google Groups, but it is not a a service provided by Google, and in fact it predates the World Wide Web itself. If you have a Unix shell account somewhere you can still access it via clients like trn).
The single most hated idea in modern society is the idea that black people might not be as smart as white people. I believe the popularity of the “race does not exist” meme is almost entirely due to the belief that it rules out this dreaded possibility a priori.
Of course it doesn’t, any more than it rules out the possibility that black people might have darker skin than white people, or curlier hair. Whatever language you want to use to describe it, it is undeniable that people from different parts of the world differ in many physical traits, and there is no reason that intelligence couldn’t be one of those traits. If people could be made to understand this I think most would lose interest in denying the existence of race; the problem is that understanding this argument takes just enough effort that if someone doesn’t want to go there you can’t make them go there. And the people pushing the meme really, really do not want to go there!
That’s my best guess.
I think that has to be pretty much everybody’s first guess. But there seems to be more and more evidence that humans showed up in the New World 22,000 years ago, rather that 15,000. So why didn’t all the big animals go extinct then? Maybe those first humans had forgotten how to hunt for some reason? Or were never very good at it? It just seems odd.
[I posted this almost 7 hours ago but it seems to have been swallowed by the comment system, so I’m trying again.]
“Diversity” has always been a code word for affirmative action. Its purpose has always been to benefit the Oppressed at the expense of the Oppressor. The reason the word has been so wildly popular on the left is that it allows you to obscure the fact that you are taking away from one group and giving to another — something the losers might feel they had a right to object to — and frame it instead as everyone winning.
In principle there might be situations where diversity might mean whites benefiting at the expense of blacks, or men benefiting at the expense of women, but in practice this never happens. Indeed, if a situation like this ever did arise it would just feel wrong to diversity supporters, and you just know they would find some way to argue that this wasn’t a case of true diversity.
Just wondering why this comment (the comment I’m responding to) has been languishing for over two hours while 12 comments that were posted later have been approved. I did notice that when I posted, instead of appearing with a “Your comment is awaiting moderation” notice, the comment simply disappeared (something I’ve seen before), and it didn’t show up as awaiting moderation until I refreshed about an hour later, so maybe there’s some quirk in the comment system and the comment got lost.
“Diversity” has always been a code word for affirmative action. Its purpose has always been to benefit the Oppressed at the expense of the Oppressor. The reason the word has been so wildly popular on the left is that it allows you to obscure the fact that you are taking away from one group and giving to another — something the losers might feel they had a right to object to — and frame it instead as everyone winning.
In principle there might be situations where diversity might mean whites benefiting at the expense of blacks, or men benefiting at the expense of women, but in practice this never happens. Indeed, if a situation like this ever did arise it would just feel wrong to diversity supporters, and you just know they would find some way to argue that this wasn’t a case of true diversity.
Consider two schools.
“Diversity” has always been a code word for affirmative action.
This is an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
The reason the word has been so wildly popular on the left is that it allows you to obscure the fact that you are taking away from one group and giving to another — something the losers might feel they had a right to object to — and frame it instead as everyone winning
Sometimes in education (especially in elementary education or special education) a school may hire a man over a more-qualified woman just so the school (or department) isn't completely overrun by women. I would imagine this happens in nursing as well, but in both cases the fields are not prestigious and are derided as "woman's work".
In principle there might be situations where diversity might mean whites benefiting at the expense of blacks, or men benefiting at the expense of women, but in practice this never happens.
By John D. Sailer
Nov 2, 2023, 8:00pm PDT
OK, gotta ask. Any relation?
“There is power in a name…”
Well there is definitely power in being able to force the people you hate to rename things that have had established names for hundreds of years. That’s what this is all about! It’s an exercise of power! Nobody is actually being hurt by those names. Very few are even aware of their origin. But it is the prerogative of power to say “you shall have nothing that is offensive to me”, and that’s what the black activists and their white allies are asserting. That’s why they are so diligent in seeking out any name or artifact, however obscure, that they can cast as being in some way tainted. Every time they can force a change they are both reaffirming their own power and further entrenching the source of that power: the idea that, because of their history, what black people want is more important than what anyone else wants.
I wonder if the people who are saying this sort of thing truly believe that blacks have “been there all along”, or if they see it as a “noble lie” that is required for social harmony. Or is it somehow both at the same time? It’s hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant as to believe that Cheddar Man had anything to do with sub-Saharan Africans, or so lax that they can’t be bothered to look up Quintus Lollius Urbicus on Wikipedia. (It’s such a pity that the Guardian does not have comments).
Most European and Asian women (I’d use the word “Eurasian”, but in this context that seems to mean something more specific) would be at least a 7 if they kept themselves fit and slim and didn’t ruin it with tats and piercings.
The woke — along with many conventional liberals — see Hitler as a sort of Dark God who is forever threatening to burst out of the grave. I once ran that analogy past a Jewish friend of mine who is quite liberal but by no means woke, and he nodded and said “yep, that’s pretty much how I feel.”
Most White Gentiles seem to agree with that. They think that after what Hitler did, we simply can't be trusted with anything but post-political governance. It's pathetic but that seems to be where most of our people still are.
[...] see Hitler as a sort of Dark God who is forever threatening to burst out of the grave.
So you are saying that Chauvin was trying to kill Floyd?Replies: @jb
Beyond that, I have no sympathy for a cop who continues kneeling on a handcuffed suspect’s neck (or back, or whatever you nitpickers) for three minutes after his partner says he can’t find a pulse.
I think it’s clear that Chauvin was not trying to kill Floyd. But under Minnesota law the intent to kill is not required for a murder conviction. I don’t like this myself. My intuitive understanding of “murder” does require an intent to kill. But that’s not the law in most states. (And I stand by my characterization of Chauvin as an asshole cop. I would have preferred a verdict of manslaughter myself, but I can’t bring myself to feel much sympathy for him, and I certainly don’t see him as any sort of martyr).
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/whole-george-floyd-story-was-lie-tucker-carlsonReplies: @Erik L, @jb
"The Whole George Floyd Story Was A Lie": Tucker Carlson
I agree that the George Floyd incident has been grossly misrepresented, but it has nothing to do with fentanyl. This is yet another example of rightists screwing themselves by gloming on to “hoax” narratives while missing the true point. I watched the trial carefully, and came to the reluctant conclusion that under Minnesota law the guilty verdict was indeed reasonable. Addicts can survive much higher concentrations of drugs in their blood than non-addicts, so there is no guarantee that the fentanyl by itself would have killed Floyd. And the law was quite clear that Chauvin could still be found guilty of murder even if fentanyl also contributed to Floyd’s death. Beyond that, I have no sympathy for a cop who continues kneeling on a handcuffed suspect’s neck (or back, or whatever you nitpickers) for three minutes after his partner says he can’t find a pulse. Chauvin was being an asshole cop, someone died, and he paid the price. Please don’t try to make him a glorious martyr for the cause.
The true counter-narrative should focus on two simple and indisputable points:
1) There is absolutely no evidence that George Floyd’s death had anything to do with race or racism. It was never even alleged that Chauvin or any of the other officers said or did anything that would imply any sort of racial bias against Floyd. The “fact” that it was a “racist killing” is based entirely on the fact that “everyone knows” that’s what it was.
2) The same sort of thing happens to white people too (e.g., Tony Timpa and Danial Shaver). Such incidents don’t feed into the moral panic over racism, so the mainstream media finds them uninteresting and doesn’t report them, leading people to think that only blacks die this way, so what else could it be but racism? The possibility that the police are not racist, that they are simply fallible humans who screw up sometimes, never enters the discussion.
All of the social changes stemming from the Floyd hysteria have been powered by the sense that Floyd’s death proved once and for all that the anti-racists were totally right about America, that almost 60 years after the Civil Rights Act it remains a deeply and intransigently racist society, and so extreme measures are justified. This is the false perception that must be fought. Quibbling over highly arguable issues like whether George Floyd had enough fentanyl in his blood to kill him doesn’t help.
So you are saying that Chauvin was trying to kill Floyd?Replies: @jb
Beyond that, I have no sympathy for a cop who continues kneeling on a handcuffed suspect’s neck (or back, or whatever you nitpickers) for three minutes after his partner says he can’t find a pulse.
Given that we are all using fake names and emails, how exactly is Steve going to know who chipped in?
Isn't that the same deal for comments about anything? I figured it's about your sleep hours.
That said, please don’t expect me to read every bit of your mansplanation of the mechanics of the phenomenon known as mansplaining. I’ll probably just scan it for bad words and then hit “Approve” a frustrating 17 hours after you posted it ...
It’s possible to write a comment that is extremely objectionable without using any bad words (especially given the, um, delicacy of many of the topics discussed here). I’ve noticed that the overall level of discourse here never dips below a certain level, as it often does in the comment sections of certain other blogs, and I assume this is due to moderation. In addition, a moderation delay can be good in and of itself, as it discourages tit-for-tat comment wars. So I hit “Approve” on Steve’s “at whim” moderation policy and appreciate whatever time and effort goes into it.
Oh nuts, I was hoping nobody else had made that joke but I guess it was too obvious.
I haven’t forgotten about the anthrax attacks, and they continue to make me nervous. I don’t care much about who was responsible for the last one; what bothers me is the fact that such a thing is even possible. And it’s only going to get easier as our knowledge advances! My fear is that the world will end in neither fire nor ice, it will be a depressed biotech grad student using a DIY gene splicing kit he ordered on Amazon.
Zach Mullins was used to walking into rooms filled with White faces. But he was taken aback when, at an air show last year in San Diego, a man approached to ask: “Did you know that you’re the only Black fighter pilot in the Marine Corps?”Mullins, who flies F/A-18 Hornets, is one of five, in fact. But in recalling the exchange, he said that, “I never really thought about the numbers just because it was the job that I wanted to do” — though it was “a little staggering,” the Marine captain conceded, to learn the number of African Americans in elite jobs like his was so small.
Only five black Marine fighter pilots? Well, of course, this lack of diversity is totally unacceptable!
There are 60 Black fighter pilots in the Air Force, or 2 percent of the community. Navy data show 15 Black pilots out of 1,124, about 1.3 percent.
Ooops, still too many pale males, I guess. By all means, let's entrust a machine that weighs 37,000 lbs, can fly in excess of 1,000 mph, and is loaded to the gills with stuff that go boom to people who can't hack it.Replies: @Bill Jones, @Old Prude, @Old Prude, @AceDeuce, @Cool Shoes, @jb, @tyrone, @Anon, @Adolf Smith, @Seneca44, @Corn, @anonymous
Statistics provided by the Marine Corps show that, in the past two years, about 35 percent of newly commissioned lieutenants came from what the service calls diverse backgrounds, defined as anyone other than a White male. The data show, too, that last year nearly 45 percent of those enrolled in enlisted-to-officer programs were categorized as diverse.
…about 35 percent of newly commissioned lieutenants came from what the service calls diverse backgrounds, defined as anyone other than a White male.
I’ve actually seen the term “diverse individual” used to refer to people who had the property of not being a straight white male. I’ve seen it more than once, in official corporate contexts. This seems like a contradiction in terms — how can an “individual” be “diverse”? — but nobody bats an eye.
I read an article about this project a while back, and whoever wrote it had some reason to think that the owner of the scrolls had a special interest some minor writer or cult or something, and that there was a good chance that if do manage to image the text we won’t find anything particularly interesting, no lost plays or histories or philosophy from anyone important. I’m not sure how anyone could know this today, but that’s what I remember reading.
Wait, Steve SailYer?
https://rlv.zcache.com/come_out_of_the_closet_you_have_a_life_to_live_postcard-r8dd7177a2717462289bbce43cb39500f_vgbaq_8byvr_324.jpg
I think of him as Steve Salient. Good interview, Steve.
Wait, Steve SailYer?
Weirdly, horse racing, a sport with vast sums spent on eugenic breeding, isn’t getting all that much faster.
There are two way to eugenically improve a population: The quick way is to increase the frequency of favorable genes and decrease the frequency of unfavorable genes through selective breeding. The slow way is to wait for new favorable mutations to arise by chance. The quick way can transform a small founding population of mostly Arabian horses into a larger and moderately faster population of thoroughbreds. The slow way can transform Eohippus into Equus. So the explanation for why horses aren’t getting any faster is that we’ve already optimized them all we can — there aren’t any further gains to be wrung out of existing genetic variation, and new genes aren’t coming coming fast enough to make a difference on the time scale we’re interested in. The implications for eugenics on humans are fairly obvious: we might be able to create a population of Shakespeares and Einsteins, but not science fiction god-men with IQs of 1000. (Shakespeares and Einsteins would be pretty good though).
(I assume it would be possible in principle to speed things up by genetically engineering faster horses and smarter people using something like CRISPR, but people would scream, and at least for now we don’t understand the genetic architecture of horses or humans well enough to make it work. I should ask ChatGPT about this…).
Also, Pierre Menard is one of my favorite JLB stories, and not something I was expecting to pop up in this context!
Simple - just splice some octopus DNA into a horse. 8 legs, should go twice as fast. Pfizer's probably already got something - just waiting for the liability waiver.
(I assume it would be possible in principle to speed things up by genetically engineering faster horses and smarter people using something like CRISPR, but people would scream, and at least for now we don’t understand the genetic architecture of horses or humans well enough to make it work. I should ask ChatGPT about this…).
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: Then a miracle occurs…
Phase 3: Profit
(Seriously, this is one of the all time great science cartoons. And fairly true to life! I can remember my physics professors waving their hands and using the word “miracle” on more than one occasion).
Nope, computer science, not social science. Nothing to do with human behavior. If you have other examples I’d like to see them, but remember I’m looking for examples of surprising findings about human behavior that have been put to practical use. For example “priming” and “nudging” could in principle be put to practical use, but they haven’t held up well. And while the heritability of personality traits is well established, it is neither surprising nor, as far as I know, ever been used in any practical way.
Game theory is math, not social science.
There may be an easy answer to this that I am missing, but can anyone name any finding in the social sciences in the last 50 years (or ever really) that: 1) was unexpected or counterintuitive; and 2) was put into routine productive use in any way?
A thought: Sub-Saharan Africans seem to be looked down on worldwide, and I find myself wondering how much of that is due to their unattractive features: the weird hair in particular, but also the nose, lips, and jutting jaws, all of which distance them visually from the rest of humanity. If sub-Saharans all had straight hair like the Indians they get their weaves from, and the sort of noble features you sometimes see on Ethiopians, but were in all other ways as problematic as they are now, would they still be as disliked?
I’ve had a subscription to The Atlantic since the 70s, and as magazines go it’s still pretty good (and still somewhat influential I believe). And it sometimes even publishes articles that might be considered anti-woke (or at least woke-dubious). It also publishes a lot of articles on its web site, like this one, that don’t appear in the print magazine, and are more random in quality.
What kind of hate is acceptable?Replies: @jb
You may be against all racist hate (as any reasonable person should be)
What kind of hate is acceptable?
There are those saintly individuals who preach that all hatred is misguided, but for myself I would say hatred for those who do harm, either to yourself or others. You know: “I hate you because you slaughtered my family, burned my village, and pillaged my sheep!”
Of course it’s true that the meaning hate is often stretched beyond reasonable bounds. And there is also the problem that I may see you as doing harm while you see what you are doing as good. Fortunately there are gradations of hatred, from mild annoyance to “You slaughtered…”, and it’s usually possible to pick something appropriate.
There is in fact a such thing as “racist hate” (which can be directed at whites, blacks, or others), and it is not the same as “racial preference”. The former is bad, the latter is neutral.
I strongly believe in fighting back, but we are not fighting from a position of strength, and we desperately need to avoid friendly fire. Trump did bring these issues out (not the Jews though — he doesn’t seem to have the Jew Thing, for which I am extremely grateful, because I think that one is a huge loser), and if he had played his cards right and been more careful with his words he could have had even the suburban women nodding along, but instead I am afraid that in the end he has made the situation worse, that all in all he has made our enemies stronger. I don’t want four more years of Biden, but Trump is so profoundly erratic and irresponsible that leaving aside all political and ideological considerations the thought of him in the White House for another four years scares me just as much. And I don’t see any white knights on the horizon. DeSantis seems to have the most potential, so he would be my pick — once in power he might (or might not) turn into a “smart Trump.” But he seems to be nowhere near overtaking Trump in the polls.
Frankly, at this point I am rooting for a health crisis.
Are these the same suburban women who hated Romney for being a vicious dog-abuser? Maybe you should consider who puts these ideas in the heads of silly females?
if he had played his cards right and been more careful with his words he could have had even the suburban women nodding along,
Trump wasn’t attacked because he was a citizenist. He was attacked because he was a flaming jackass who handed his head to his enemies on a silver platter so many times that it is impossible to keep count. He is by far the most incompetent politician I’ve ever seen in my life — which is deeply tragic, because he has a great platform (that’s what got him elected, not his winning personality), and if he had had the skills to follow through he could have engineered a realignment in American (and perhaps Western?) politics. He held all the strongest cards — Jobs! Immigration! Foreign Wars! — and he pissed all over those cards and made it so much harder for anyone else to use them. He is precisely the disaster I was afraid he might be back in 2016.
You may be against all racist hate (as any reasonable person should be), but since the only racist hate in America that is not already being vociferously condemned is that which is directed at whites, by highlighting it and calling it out you have effectively made yourself a pro-white advocate, however racially neutral your own political ideals may be.
What kind of hate is acceptable?Replies: @jb
You may be against all racist hate (as any reasonable person should be)
You’re just unhappy because Steve isn’t using his platform to say the things you would say if people were listening to you. But nobody is listening to you, while quite a few people are listening to Steve, and many of the things he has to say — naming and calling out anti-white hatred being merely one example — are extremely important and do in fact advance the interests of white people, without being tied to any specific racial ideology.
If what you are after is racial solidarity based on “natural instincts” (a concept I am a rather dubious about), then making white people understand that they are targets of hatred will help advance your cause. But even if all you want to do is end “reverse racism”, well, making white people understand that they are targets of hatred is still going to help your cause. Helping white people understand the forces arrayed against them is good for whites no matter what your specific political goals are. So I stand by what I said: Steve is one of the most effective and influential pro-white voices in America.
Steve is not a white nationalist, but you don’t have to be a white nationalist to be pro-white. Steve has written extensively about the barely concealed anti-white hatred at the core of progressive social ideology — explicitly naming it as anti-white hatred, which is a big deal — and he has reached a significant audience, an audience that includes influential people. By any reasonable measure that counts as effective pro-white advocacy. The fact that he is not a white nationalist makes him more effective, not less.
Possibly of interest to Steve: The Plight of the N.F.L. Running Back
N.F.L. running backs, once the face of many teams, have fallen so far in relative value over the last few decades that it has amounted to a public demotion.
They have seen their contributions derided by data analysts, and their pay slip in relation even to unglamorous offensive linemen. This past off-season, some staged holdouts and others organized a Zoom call to try to fight against their predicament. But the evolution of the game toward passing — and a salary structure that doesn’t reward their brief prime years — may mean that running backs never recover the market power they once had.
Just FYI, I don’t like podcasts and rarely listen to them. There are only so many hours in a day! (If there’s a transcript though I might read it). (And I do understand that sitting down and being interviewed is a lot less time consuming than writing your own stuff, so I can’t really begrudge you that).
What are you talking about? Steve is one of the most influential pro-white voices in America! You upset because he isn’t calling for repatriation or the return of slavery or something?
I had a male IT coworker late 80s/early 90s who was something of a wanabe Indian. He would spend his vacations hanging out with Indian tribes somewhere taking part in their rituals or something (it was never clear and I didn’t press). It wasn’t something he talked about much though, and he never claimed to be Indian. He was also gay, which may have had something to do with it. (For all the talk of how badly alphabet people were oppressed back then, the way I remember it nobody at work cared).
Totally off topic for this article but totally on topic for Steve, from Foreign Policy magazine: Demography Is Destiny in Africa.
Not as much to see though as one might wish. There is a nice version of Steve’s “Most Important Chart” that includes Asia. A projection that sub-Saharan Africa will account for (only) a third of the world’s population by 2100, which is somewhat undercut by a projection of a sharp decline in African fertility, which will supposedly drop to replacement level by the end of the century. (Demographers have never been right about this before, so I guess they are due). And of course no discussion of emigration.
It looks to me like Ohtani posed (or at least paused) after his double. Did he think it was gone?
The precise language matters. It’s true that many liberals and leftists have a gut feeling that there is something intrinsically bad about white people and “whiteness”, but only the most extreme will agree, even in the privacy of their own minds, to a phrase like “the cancer of human history”. The great majority of liberals and leftists see themselves as fair minded people who are opposed to injustice — which, somehow, always seems to be inflicted by white people. But they aren’t bigots! They aren’t anti-white! That isn’t even a thing!!! The goal is to find language that will get past their defenses and make them understand that it is a thing, that the rhetoric they have been nodding their heads to is in fact anti-white, that it targets an entire race of people because of the color of their skin and who their ancestors were. Finding the language to force this realization could potentially change a lot of minds.
Separately, I am dismayed at the level of Jew hate on Unz. Do you really believe that the Elders of Zion regularly gather in secret conclaves to discuss the next steps in their nefarious plans? If not, then how does their Jewishness matter? Personally I see absolutely no daylight between liberal Jews and liberal Goys. They think the same thoughts, move in the same circles, and intermarry heavily. (A. G. Sulzberger, publisher of the supposedly Jewish New York Times, is in fact only one quarter Jewish). Jews have perfectly understandable historical reasons for leaning left, and they excel in politics and academia for the same reason they excel in science and business: they have high IQs. But I see zero evidence that there are any Jews at all who act collectively as Jews against non-Jews. I see only liberals who happen to be Jewish, and who are otherwise indistinguishable from liberals who aren’t Jews.
You’re wasting your time. These people are immune to facts, logic, and principles.
“The precise language matters.”
The same criticism is equally true of the Unz neo-Nazis.
“Separately, I am dismayed at the level of Jew hate on Unz.”
Well there is the "Biden" Administration.
Separately, I am dismayed at the level of Jew hate on Unz. Do you really believe that the Elders of Zion regularly gather in secret conclaves to discuss the next steps in their nefarious plans?
I'd say, the "officially approved" sequence was:
People keep skipping one, “Afro-American”, in that sequence. It should be “Negro, Colored, Afro-American, Black, and then African-America. I could go back a little further though …
The Spanish word is really the best though, because it is the only one that unambiguously says “sub-Saharan.” I would like to see it come back.
No, that is exactly the kind of language I am trying to avoid!
To begin with, for most people “Communist” means Comintern style Marxism-Leninism, which was not anti-white, so using the word just confuses the issue. There is an analogy of course — traditional Marxism identified the Bourgeoisie as the oppressor that had illegitimately stolen its wealth from the Proletariat — but it isn’t the same, and talking like it is is counterproductive. (I do think “Cultural Marxism” can be a useful term, but you have to define it carefully and make clear the distinctions between it and traditional Marxism).
Beyond that, you missed my point. I’m looking for language that the Leftists themselves would identify with. That’s a lot harder than just calling them names! The point of the exercise is that there are a lot of borderline “Cultural Leftists” who have just blindly absorbed the language and thinking of the Left because it sounded nice and was the thing to do, without really understanding what was implied. I want to make those people say to themselves “Wait, is that what I actually believe?” “Is that what I want to believe?” You can’t do this by accusing them of something that they see as wildly wrong (like being a Communist); you have to accuse them of something that seems kinda right, but is also, once you actually think about it, kinda distasteful.
"Racial Collectivist" might be more accurate. There is a collectivism based on class and a collectivism based on race. The collectivism based on class, Marxism, was largely discredited with its failure in the Soviet Union and China and they then moved away from it. Putin and Xi are more semi-authoritarian types and not hardline Marxists.
To begin with, for most people “Communist” means Comintern style Marxism-Leninism, which was not anti-white, so using the word just confuses the issue.
See, this is your problem, JB. You seem to care what the ctrl-left wants, but you don't actually know what they want. I do.
Beyond that, you missed my point. I’m looking for language that the Leftists themselves would identify with. That’s a lot harder than just calling them names!
I think it’s useful to try to boil down to the simplest possible core what it is that the Left is really saying with all this diversity talk, using language that the Leftists themselves would agree with (at least privately). My current best effort: “White people have too much, it was acquired illegitimately, and it needs to be taken from them”. Can anyone best this?
“White men” might be more accurate.
My current best effort: “White people have too much, it was acquired illegitimately, and it needs to be taken from them”. Can anyone best this?
Because of the amount of time that had passed, I had come to assume that Putin had some sort of 4-D chess rational for allowing Prigozhin to live. But no, he’s a judo guy after all.
(Alternative hypothesis: Prigozhin is alive, in a dungeon somewhere, wishing he had been on that plane).
If you like Eyebeam you might appreciate Odd Bodkins. Very weird, and very 60s.
I’m a big fan of Pearls Before Swine. It seems that Bill Watterson is as well, because he briefly came out of retirement to collaborate with Stephan Pastis on a week’s worth of strips (sequence starts here). I haven’t heard of him doing that with anyone else.
It seems that Christopher Caldwell also thought that Snoopy was the problem, although for different reasons than you. (That article originally appeared in New York Press, but unfortunately the original link is dead).
I started getting the impression that Peanuts was going downhill in the early 70s. There was one comic in particular, this one, that struck me even at the time as an inflection point. We didn’t have the expression “jumping the shark” back then, but it seems appropriate. From then on the comic just seemed to lose focus. For example Schulz introduced Snoopy’s brother Spike in 1975, and seemed very taken with the character, but the strips involving Spike all just seemed kind of lame to me. I like comics, so I kept reading, but I never felt it recovered to the level of the 60s.
I was just reading this article in the Times and thinking “oh man, this is right up Steve’s alley, I should post a comment”, and then I come here and…
That's not correct. 1st of all, Sephardic means "Spanish". Most Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from Spanish Jews. Nor is there much Slavic admixture either. Italian is correct. Basically speaking, Ashkenazi Jews are Middle Eastern on the paternal line and Italian on the maternal. The best guess is that they are descended from a small group of single male Jews who ended up in Rome and married local women.
The classic paradigm of Ashkenazi genetics is Sephardic Jewish/Italian crossed with Slavs.
…would this family attract attention on the streets of Naples?
Yes. “Signore Cleese, may I have your autograph?”
I honestly can’t think of any good reason for our brains to have an ethnic recognition module. For most of human history people never ran into anyone who was all that different ethnically from themselves, and when they did it was not necessarily to their advantage to avoid mixing, so how would such a thing evolve? I’ve run into a lot of ideas like this — in particular from writers like Lance Welton and Edward Dutton on VDARE — that strike me as what you might call HBD Overreach. Not everything is about race and ethnicity.