Hate Free Zone!

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Comments

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Reverse racism and reverse sexism are stupid terms. It's not a one way street. Usually when you have a moral theory that isolates one group as capable of being racist, for example, but another group cannot be, then you have a bad moral theory. And, that's what we see being thrown around today. The reality is everyone is behaving ethnocentrically, but only one group is being vilified for it. And it deserves to be mocked for the absurdity that it is.

As far as your questions go, there has to be an ethnocentric state for white people somewhere. One that doesn't subvert the host population in favor of foreigners with anti-white policies. Otherwise you end up with a form of genocide.

I don't see why foreigners couldn't be granted various worker visas. But, they would have to go back to their own ethnocentric nation with the skills they've learned.

And, I have no idea what you're referencing, but women have plenty of reproductive rights. Women tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family. And it's absurd to think that's a lower position when it's an essential element to a thriving community of people.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

In order to protect the fruits of the genocide of the Europeans against the Indians, it is important to prevent a sort of cultural genocide by multiculturalism, yes? And 'making America great' means keeping America white and white-led, right?

Women tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family.

And if they don't want to be childbearing housewives, they will just need to grin and bear it.

And the gays don't even make it in the equation, I suppose. Back in the closet?

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

That sure presents things in a very twisted way. Women love bearing children and making a family. That's the stuff that makes most women happy because that is their true nature. The few exceptions you're referencing are not the norm. But, hyperbolic mantra like what you're touting has been trying to normalize this deviation by destroying the home women build with their men by depicting it as a cage, and now after a generation of that poison women are miserable -- evident by all the anti-depressants they're on.

This post modernism crap has taken everything and turned it on its head irrespective of any benefits produced by traditional ways. And lefties keeps doubling down until the entire society is destroyed from what it once was.

Basically, you have obliviously thrown the baby out with the bath water and pat yourselves on the back on how righteous you are for challenging all these traditional concepts. And, yet so many are drowning themselves in drugs, alcohol, and mindless TV to keep from pulling out their own eyes because they can't actually face the reality in front of their very eyes.

Lefties glorify...

-unhealthy eating;
-numbing oneself with drugs and alcohol;
-self mutilation;
-rejection of the womb and childbearing;
-emasculation of men;


And, that's just off the top of my head. Any notion that this ideology is liberating in any way is a complete sham. This is the decay of society, not the liberation of it.

MAGA is all about knocking this false god down and restoring all that was good again. And, no, it's not all about America being white led. Although any white person that thinks a white leader is evil or somehow wrong is being retarded and masochistic.

Multiculturalism is not and has not been the norm. The default has always been ethnocentricity.

So, you can take your ideology and hold up and worship it all you like. It's just another false god in the end.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

uh. no, Lefties glorify *people's right to choose* those things.

Lefties glorify the freedom of people to engage in whichever lifestyle works best for them on a private, non-invasive level. If they prefer to enact traditional roles and have traditional lifestyles in society, more power to them. If they choose to do otherwise, more power to them. Because the best society is one that grows with the people's directives, not some arbitrarily chosen set of mores that never change, never flex.

Our cultures have always been "multcultural" just now we do not criminalize it. We engulf it and reap the benefits of a happier, more inclusive group.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"Lefties glorify...

-unhealthy eating;
-numbing oneself with drugs and alcohol;
-self mutilation;
-rejection of the womb and childbearing;
-emasculation of men;

This is nonsense.

"Lefties" don't glorify eating one way or the other, any more than "righties" do. It's not a partisan thing. You have health nuts on both sides, as well as gluttons.

Lefties do not believe in "numbing oneself" with drugs/alcohol. They believe that we should start treating addiction like a disease and not a crime to wage war on. The recognize the disaster that the "war on drugs" has been and the vast damage it's caused to our inner cities, and want to reform our criminal code so that people committing victim-less crimes aren't treated like mass-murderers.

Lefties don't believe in "self-mutilation," but they do believe in the right to decide what to do with one's own body. Most lefties don't have multiple piercings and multiple tattoos. Most "righties" see nothing wrong with earrings or tattoos. Why is that not a "belief in self-mutilation?" Are you trying to take the example of a minority and apply that to the majority?

Most lefties want children. Most lefties also recognize that abortion is a necessity, and again, believe in bodily autonomy (and recognize the scientific facts about when a fetus is actually viable and can feel pain - "righties" reject science when it conflicts with their world-view.) Since the right refuses to consider the societal benefits (economic and in terms of crime) of widely promoting and funding comprehensive sex-ed and birth control, abortions will continue to happen. (The right's dismissal of those things proves that the right doesn't actually care about babies so much as policing sexuality. They HATE sex outside of marriage, and want to enact Puritan morality on everyone.) You don't like abortion? Support the things proven to actually work at lessening it: education and birth-control, and not abortion bans.

Lefties don't want the "emasculation of men." They want to show that "grunting beer-swilling muscle freaks watching NASCAR" is not the only way to be a "man" or masculine. Manhood is not a one-size fits all behavior model (that is only a couple hundred years old at most, for crying out loud.) I don't play sports, I don't really watch them on TV that much, I like musical theater, I display my emotions and cry when its appropriate. Guess what: I am every bit as much a man as some muscle builder or football player: but I stand for what I believe in, I support my family, and I work to make my world a better place. I'll have words with anyone who says that makes me "emasculated." I know who I am, and I'll not allow right-wing Victorian-era pigeon-holers to tell me what is, or is not, "a man."


"Multiculturalism is not and has not been the norm. The default has always been ethnocentricity. "

Babies and very young children can and do recognize differences in skin tone. But babies and very young children do not separate themselves accordingly. The separation of groups is something that has to be taught. Yes, there are certain tribalistic urges that come from our background as apes (which have more to do with group size than anything else, and we just decided to use physical characteristics as an identifier) but "we did it as apes" is no excuse if a behavior is harmful. Ethnocentricity is no more "default" than multiculturalism. We can decide which one we want by weighing the benefits and costs of each. I would argue that multiculturalism is, over time, the best road towards building a good society.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Babies and small children will walk up to a tiger without any awareness of the tiger posing as a threat. And, tigers being predators isn't a social construct. So, you have to take into account that there are stages of development going on as various internal systems are booting up or calibrating to the environment, to put it analogously.

Apes behave tribally, and this behavior is not a social construct. More importantly, that tribalism drives them to engage in war with other tribes that are in proximity. And we have those same qualities. So, this notion that race is just a social construct is a complete farce.

Rather, race is merely the abstraction we use to identify our collective identity. This tribalism is innate. And another way to put that is: Ethnocentricity.

Now, people can condition against this by exposure to other groups, and this is what multiculturalism does. However, this is a conditioned response.


You've adopted an ideology that holds this conditioning as some moral imperative. And I have no reason to accept that.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Unless you're arguing that people of different ethnic backgrounds are analogous to dangerous tigers, there's no practical reason to embrace "ethnocentricity." As our world becomes more interconnected because of technology of communications and travel, a multicultural approach simply makes more practical sense.

Of course multicultural attitudes are conditioned. As I already said, our ability to think abstractly allows us to decide which "innate" behaviors are beneficial and which are not, and to condition ourselves appropriately so that the beneficial ones are integrated into our societies, and the harmful ones are not.

We can condition ourselves to embrace tribalism, and an ethnocentric view, but it brings with it an inevitable tendency towards greater conflicts. This is the view we've adopted for much of our history, which has been rife with such conflicts.

Alternately, we can condition ourselves to reject tribalism, and to adopt a more multi-cultural view (not necessarily "cultural relativism.") This does not eliminate all conflict, because there are always deep long-running tensions and pre-existing conflicts that don't just go away because we've said they should, but walling up the world into enclaves brings more tension and more conflict in the long-term. Balkanization has always led to greater hostility and often open conflict.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"Reverse racism and reverse sexism are stupid terms. It's not a one way street. Usually when you have a moral theory that isolates one group as capable of being racist, for example, but another group cannot be, then you have a bad moral theory"

Discussing racism without considering the power dynamic is a meaningless exercise. An individual without power holding racial prejudices has a vastly different impact than an individual in a position of power holding racial prejudices (supported by societal structures that also help uphold them.) That's why there is a distinction, in academic circles, between racism and prejudice. Anyone can be prejudiced or bigoted. Only someone in a position of power can be racist.

Quibble about dictionary definitions all you want, but the point of that distinction is that simply saying "everyone can be racist; there is no such thing as "reverse racism!" solves absolutely nothing. It's about as useful as saying "I don't see color!" It does nothing to solve the actual real-life problems being faced by people because of decades of inertia driving ingrained inequalities in our society. It's nothing more than an easy way to give lip-service to egalitarian ideals without actually having to wrestle with the difficult work of actually seeing where inequalities exist and doing something tangible to combat them.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

"Discussing racism without considering the power dynamic is a meaningless exercise."

You've introduced a power dynamic in order to isolate one group's behavior -- which is the point of your exercise whether you admit it or not. You're looking to justify cherry picking who is and is not racist. That's what this serves to do.

You're not being objective. You're being the opposite of that. The power dynamic is irrelevant.

Your presuppositions about inequalities affect your concepts about racism. i.e. You've redefined racism according to such filters.

Simply put, equality is a fantasy of the left.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"equality is a fantasy of the left."

What does this statement mean?

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Any sense of equality you think exist is not based in reality. It is something you're projecting upon reality.

So, for example: social equality does not exist; economic equality does not exist; biological equality does not exist.

Why are you governing yourself as though it ought to?

Basically, you have Hume's ought VS is problem here. You're trying to force reality to conform to this ought. And that's putting the cart before the horse.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

No, equality does not exist. That is why we continue to work towards making it a reality.

The real question is not whether it exists but whether it should exist. I believe that it should, that at the very least there ought to be equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of background, ethnicity, or belief. (And I do believe that any modern nation ought to also provide for certain equalities of outcome in certain, limited areas.)

I absolutely will fight to force reality to conform to that "ought." That's the very nature of political action: fighting to make the world conform more perfectly to one's world-view. The alternative is to simply sit back and say: "The world is as the world is, and trying to change it is foolish." I will not agree with such a statement.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

there has to be an ethnocentric state for white people somewhere.

Why? I mean, why does it matter that "white people" survive? It's always held out as this obvious truth, this self-evident conclusion - but why? The type of "genocide" being discussed here isn't actually mass-murder. It's the slow change in skin tones through inter-breeding over time to the point that, potentially, people with pale skin that we currently call "white" may no longer exist.

So again, I ask: why is this a problematic future? What would that future look like? Why would it be "bad?" Unless someone is claiming that skin-tone actually affects intelligence and behavior, it should be absolutely shrug-worthy. I'm about as white as they come. Why in the hell do I care if all of my descendants are someday darker skinned than I am? Why should I care if the entire world settles into one shade? You have to demonstrate how this is actually a bad thing, beyond the old racist ideas of the past that darker skin somehow equates to lower intelligence and bad character.

I mean, we have to remember that race doesn't exist. It is a social construct. We came up with the idea that varying skin tones actually mean something, because we couldn't get past idiotic tribalism, left over from our development as apes in the wild. But not all evolutionary urges are beneficial or useful in a modern society concerned with the promotion and preservation of human rights. The great thing about our human intelligence is that we can ignore harmful urges.

Again, race is a social construct. Our deciding that skin color somehow is a valid criteria for separating ourselves into groups is about as valid as doing it based on hair-color, or tendency towards having freckles, or eye colors. It's a meaningless superficial characteristic that ought to hold about as much importance as those other things, but we decided it somehow matters, somehow makes us different.

If, over time through interbreeding, there eventually were no more white people*, it wouldn't be genocide** any more than if, over time through inter-breeding, we ended up with no more people with freckles, or brown eyes, or armpit hair. Again, it's a meaningless physical characteristic with absolutely no bearing on anything, and it's only our idiotic tribalism that has made us turn it into a tool of oppression.


*The "white genocide" preached by racists is never going to actually happen, and the people so "worried" about it know this. They're not actually interested in stopping white people from going extinct (which is next-to-impossible) so much as making a nation where they don't have to look at not-white people. That kind of silly nativism has its own problems worth discussing, but that's another topic.

**genocide has a specific definition, and it's not "the slow and gradual change in superficial physical human characteristics over thousands of years." It's murder, specific targeting of people based on race, or religion, or whatever, and it involves displacement and murder and persecution. It's not the scientific principles of genetic inheritance working themselves out over time. Claiming "genocide" is a blatant insult to the actual victims of genocide in the real-world, and the racist white supremacists and separatists who to try to claim that victim status should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, if they had any sense of personal shame, they wouldn't be white supremacists, so there you go.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Race is more than just skin color.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

[citation needed]

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

https://voat.co/v/Identitarian/1623097

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

For those not willing to click that link, it goes to a page aggregating a whole bunch of outdated and disproven "scientific" ideas about race, full of half-truths and misrepresentations of genetics and biology. Basically it's white nationalism (under it's new "politically correct" name of "identitarianism.")

Yes, "race" can be determined by DNA testing, but so can hair color. You're missing the point. It's not that skin color doesn't exist, it's that it's every bit as meaningless as hair color, eye color, height, or body-mass. It means absolutely nothing in terms of intelligence and capability (and the articles that site links to trying to say otherwise are complete hogwash and have been well debunked and disproven by reputable scientists for decades.)

The idea that the majority of "whites" have no "black" or African ancestry is completely disproven by the preponderance of studies in archeology, paleontology, molecular biology, and genetics. We all came from Africa originally, we share common ancestry no farther back than about 150,000 years ago, the Solutrean hypothesis is nonsense, and our skin color (and other superficial physical differences) are nothing more than selection pressures causing expression of extremes of natural variation. None of these superficial physical changes have ever been proven to have an effect on mental ability or temperament.

There has never been an agreed upon definition of the "white race" - and the fact that until very recently Irish people were considered "non-white" proves just how socially constructed the whole idea is. It's using meaningless physical characteristics (or national origins) as a way to try to prove a fundamental difference that does not exist.

It is unscientific.

It is just plain incorrect.

It is, for want of a better word, racism.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I don't see why foreigners couldn't be granted various worker visas. But, they would have to go back to their own ethnocentric nation with the skills they've learned.

Ah, Sundown Towns!

Here, you really must recognize the power dynamic elements, or your argument has no mojo. If you don't, the fact that there were no Sundown Towns where whites were in danger of a lynchin' would nullify your assertion.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

I've read that like 4 times and still can't follow what you're saying.

And maybe you've misunderstood my point? The worker visas would work no different than student exchange programs.

The "power dynamic" doesn't stop people from going back to their own people with their new skills and developing their nations capital, unless you think they're incapable of doing so, and that's the real reason why you advocate for forced integration.

[garote]

Here's some background on the term "sundown town". I was not familiar with it either.

Peristaltor's basically saying that if we judge that law based on its effect, then the law is probably a racist one, because there is a power imbalance. The power imbalance is like that in a "sundown town": The majority-race locals form an agreement that they will deny services to whatever races they dislike - including jobs, goods, property, access to education - whether by passing laws or just by intimidation and violence, so that people of those races cannot put down any roots and stay in the area, thus preserving the integrity or purity of their race.

Needless to say it doesn't square with this nation's history of welcoming immigrants of whatever ethnicity, putting them to work, and doing business with them, to enhance the dignity and fortunes of everyone involved...

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be ethnocentric.


There was never a national policy that we should be mixing. That never happened. The US isn't a melting pot even though there are so many distinct groups in proximity of one another. People behaved ethnocentrically even then. The only difference now is that this sort of tribalism is being vilified.

[garote]

Of course there was no national policy demanding we mix. ... Because our ancestors were quite happy to mix thoroughly, regardless of laws. Some of them even mixed in defiance of both laws and social pressures. (E.g. Jefferson's multiple offspring via a slave woman.) Intermarriage between Europeans and various First Nation peoples has been common since pre-American colonial days and is now totally unremarkable. It used to be a travesty when an Italian-American married a British-American. Now we're so interbred it doesn't even come up in conversation - except perhaps in eager discussions over "our shared European heritage".

That's not to say there hasn't always been ethno-centric resistance, especially from people who are grossed out by the prospect of their pretty white women being sullied by savage black penises. How it must aggravate those people, when their daughters or girlfriends go off with a dark-skinned man and make babies, seemingly in defiance of "common sense." Men have always generally shown an intense desire to control the reproductive destiny of the women in their lives, and ethno-centrism has always aggravated that desire.

Now, I don't think this is grounds for another digression into what's "natural", because to me, it's irrelevant. I hold that people are free to be attracted to, and marry, whomever they like. They just need to go into it with both eyes open because sometimes their choices will not sit well with their community, and they might need that community for support. On the other hand, men and women alike are stubborn either way. A guy will elope with a woman who is a hot mess even though he knows she's no good for him. Mormon families have a long and ugly history of totally disowning any child that marries a non-Mormon, or god forbid, a dark-skinned person. Personally I think that disowning is tragic and stupid. But I wouldn't deny that it happens.

The US certainly has not been a 100% exemplar of happy integration; hell no. But it's done a better job integrating new groups than any other nation, and that's worth something, and also why the term "melting pot" was coined (as the title of a play celebrating cultural mixing in New York over 100 years ago, by the way).

You think "this sort of tribalism" is only being vilified now? It's been vilified since before the nation was established. I will go so far as to say it's involved in many of the worst episodes in American history, and none of the good ones. I could make you a list.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I have a very succinct definition of racist: Anyone who fears the color/religion/anything else of his or her grandchildren will be different.

This is to be defined as an emotional reaction, not a reasoned and dispassionate logical explanation. I've seen a quite reasonable person shudder with rage, for example, when I've told them their black co-worker has a cute blond wife.

He was raised by Southern folks who were unappologetically racist, but he's getting better. I think.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Needless to say it doesn't square with this nation's history of welcoming immigrants of whatever ethnicity, putting them to work, and doing business with them, to enhance the dignity and fortunes of everyone involved...

Your ellipsis shows the sarcasm! Well done!

Just saying, the ownership codicils in our own neighborhood noted that we could not sell to various ethnic groups or have them in the house after dark unless they were live-in domestic help. And The Wife™ and I live in Seattle, about as lefty as cities come. And our neighborhood was hardly unique. People wouldn't buy in neighborhoods that didn't have such restrictions (well, white people, and the right kind of white at that).

[garote]

Men tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family too, you know. :D