Damon:
Because if you really did view them as a threat, a serious one, would you not consider that your support of the current path might be worth altering just a bit, or slowing down so others can catch up?
No, because I assume, on the basis that their ideology is self-evidently corrupt, that they have no insight at all into what's actually wrong.
Maybe there are real social trends that are empowering them, but the idea that those real trends have anything at all to do with what they say is wrong with society is implausible in the extreme.
Jaybird: In the short run, it probably is a good idea to conflate the legitimate criticisms of modern liberalism, egalitarianism, and political correctness with white identitarianism. I think it will eventually result in some criticisms losing a lot of sting through overuse, though.
This seems bizarre. Why would it be a good idea to conflate legitimate criticism with one of the most thoroughly discredited ideologies there is, and one which is going to be axiomatically rejected by a large majority of people who don't qualify as "white"?
Damon:
Oh, I don’t know,”the extreme to which white nationalists take this formation would only lead to more war and conflict ”
Many extreme ideologies promote war and conflict. That hardly means that they have any merit as descriptions of reality.
I see this as a natural response to being pushed around.Oh, you can say that these folks are finally meeting resistance to THEIR pushing, but that’s not the point.
I could say that, but I won't. What I will say is that, just because they're acting like they're pushed around doesn't mean they are being pushed around. Sure, they may say as much, but given the whole "lunatics and frauds" thing mentioned above, I see no reason to care what they say.
Escalation is happening.How do you think it’ll end?I’m got an idea and it’s not pretty.But you go ahead and not worry, label them as idiots, and discount them.How could that possibly go wrong?
I can discount their point of view without discounting them as a threat.
Damon:
Couldn’t you say the same thing about other “identity” groups?
Let's assume, arguendo, that they're doing the same thing as the members of other "identity" groups--the same other "identity" groups that, they claim, are unfit to participate in the same polity as they are because they somehow lack the resources[1] to fit into a civilized society. Now they want to adopt the organizing strategies and political structure of those very groups?
This suggests to me that they're either complete idiots or frauds. Either way, why would I somehow treat their "push back" as something to give me pause?
[1] Frequently, they insist, these resources are genetic
Well, they aren't just in favor of "Western culture", but traditional, bygone "Western culture", and then they shun the products of that supposed culture in favor of commercialized products of our contemporary, allegedly debased age.
Of course. It's because they hate the actual culture of the West, and want to replace it with something completely different. The idea that they're trying to construct an "'authentic' identity divorced from the civic nationalism practiced in western societies," is a pretty big tell.
Also, the whole bit where they insist that race is totally a real thing but can't decide whether Caucasians are Caucasian is pretty funny.
But I also think that liberals push for judicial or legislative change when hey don’t have the patience for social change at a natural pace.
Certainly, but again I don't think this is a particularly meaningful charge, because it describes such a wide variety of policies, left, right and center, and, for that matter, good, bad and indifferent.
I think I accidentally deleted a reply I was trying to edit.
I think the statement is too vague to rebut. The issue isn't that "you guys" do it too, it's that it's all to easy to see ways to make the criticism fit almost anything you guys do.
It matters whether he's more or less liberal than Breyer or Kagan, but if he's more liberal, it's doesn't really matter whether he's a lot more liberal.
OK, the way it looks to me, Cruz is a hella longshot even if he does pull out the GOP nomination. He's smart, but beyond that he seems to have essentially zero virtues as a general election candidate. I can't see a quixotic Romney run shifting that enough to really affect his calculus.
On the other hand, I think Kasich has a fair number of virtues as a general election candidate, but is like, I dunno, a better Mitt Romney. "Establishment" and "centrist" cred aside, he's guilty of less serious heresies than Romney was[1], he's a better natural politician than Romney[2], and he's governor of perhaps the most important state in play in the coming election. What constituency is going to prefer Romney to him?
[1] Nothing like Romney's conspicuous flip-floppery on abortion, and "accepting the Medicaid expansion" seems like less of an issue to "implementing the model for Obamacare".
[2] A low bar to clear, sure, but HRC isn't exactly electrifying either.
Art Deco: You weren’t being ‘imprecise’. You were lying for effect.
What fucking ever, sparky.
Art Deco:
You put an ordinary person in a chokehold, he’s not going to have a heart attack and die on the way to the hospital.Nor would a late-middle aged coot like me die.Eric Garner did die, because he had a mess of underlying medical problems that only a modest minority of men aged 43 suffer.
Well, that and he was actually placed in a chokehold, which were banned by the NYPD because they are known to sometimes result in death or serious injury. But since a cop did that and he was black guy who was maybe doing something kinda bad, his death is all on him and his bum heart.
Your argument is unassailable. All you had to do was put your goalposts on Ganymede.
There are also reasons that Ferguson in particular was primed for that kind of explosion in response to even a murky, possibly justified shooting. The policing there, Brown's death aside, was a horrible, revenue-generating racket.
Oh, I'm so very, very sorry that I said "strangle" when I meant "choke". It's a truth universally acknowledged that "imprecision" and "l[ying] brazenly" are exactly the same thing.
Of course, it's not like the medical examiner's report supports your claims in the slightest, since it attributes Garner's death to the chokehold he was placed in, not an unrelated medical condition.
In other words, you have no way of distinguishing between a trend that started at the end of Dinkins' term and the beginning of Giuliani, such a trend would have been in keeping with broader national trends, and you've provided no evidence whatsoever that the specific policies in question that de Blasio has ended were responsible for NYC's decline in homicide rates.
Art Deco:
If black lives actually mattered, these people would be concerned with strategies to reduce the homicide rate in slum neighborhoods.
The most effective of which involve building trust between those police and the communities living in them. Shooting people randomly--for, say, opening the door to let cops into the building when someone else called them for help--tends to conflict with that.
That being said, it's rather bracing to bring up a grievous failure of law enforcement as a defense of law enforcement organizations.
The Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations presided over a 75% reduction in the homicide rate in New York City over a 20 year period; that amounts to 1,200 fewer people a year not dying in bed.The successor administration wants to throw that away because ‘social justice’.Black lives don’t matter to these poseurs.
The argument that changing policies of prior administrations that began after homicide rates in NYC started declining is tantamount to throwing away those gains... isn't terribly persuasive.
Art Deco:
What are the chances, if you’re black, of being killed by a police officer in circumstances you could not avoid and which did not incorporate bad behavior on your part?
Emphasis mine. I can't say I'm terribly surprised to see you suggest that it's no big deal if the cops, say, strangle someone for maybe selling loose cigarettes or carrying a knife that kinda sorta looks like it might be illegal.
Which is why "Piss Christ" was destroyed by vandals
Damon:
I wouldn’t say “no problem exists”.We do not have effective border control, and it’s not wise to have a generous welfare state and a lack of border control.Pick one.
Expensive non-solutions to real problems are not a notable improvement over expensive non-solutions to non-problems.
I disagree with Stillwater's assessment of the article[1], but I doubt the issues are ideological. I have no idea if the author is thoughtful when it comes to matters of policy, despite the fact that they're thoughtful about politics[2].
[1] OK, it wasn't perfectly written, but what is in this debased age of blogs and Tweets and hot takes and, um, Ordinary Times comments.
[2] The two kinds of thoughtfulness just aren't remotely the same. One of the most thoughtful folks I've met online, when it came to party politics, was a tedious, partisan dullard on policy, and it seems like there are legions of insightful policy wonks who understand precisely dick-all about party politics.[3]
[3] I, of course, am a shining beacon of brilliance when I discuss politics, policy, or, for that matter, anything else.
This seems a mix of insightful observations and stuff that verges (rather ironically) on conspiracy theory. The latter might be an issue with the writing and presentation, but there seems to be this assumption that members of the Trump coalition want to see Trump fail, and I think that's a bit hard to swallow. I think a lot of people are behind Trump despite knowing that he's completely full of shit because the ways he's full of shit read (to them) like a signal that they can trust him to look out for their interests. I think this is a catastrophically bad way to choose a candidate to support, but, importantly it's not a delusional or insane way to pick a candidate.
Also, the nominee could still be Cruz, or it could (somewhat more implausibly) be someone else following a brokered convention. Both, I think, would pose serious problems for the GOP, but they would be different problems.
Murali:
Perhaps. What it is more likely to imply is a radical decentralisation of education. Each individual community having full freedom to brainwash its members in whichever way they wish provided that each community allows its members to leave.
That's great if you're talking about adults, but we're talking about kids here, and, almost definitionally, they can't just get up and leave if they're being ill-served by their educations, nor are they really in any position to know when they're being well-served by their educations.
Consider a community where they believe that girls should have a sharply constrained education compared to boys, for reasons which surely make sense to them. Should we accede to their wishes, or are we just negotiating price?
Remember, I’m not arguing that nothing controversial should ever be taught. I’m arguing that we cannot insist that everyone teach controversial things. I also think that a distinction can be made between matters of fact (and science) which can be subject to a consensus based on the public use of reason and fundamental matters of value, which apart from affirming support for basic liberal institutions cannot generate any further consensus.
This strikes me as incoherent. The idea that we can make this distinction between matters of fact and science and fundamental matters of value is, in and of itself, making a determination based on a set of values. Certainly, some people believe that matters of morality are matters of fact, and others believe that, given the choice between believing (say) religious scripture and your own lying eyes, you should choose scripture every time.
This seems like the kind of argument that proves too much--in particular, it seems to suggest that one should teach virtually nothing, as there is virtually nothing that can be taught that members of some communities in a pluralistic culture won't conceivably object to.
The idea that the utility of a policy perspective in question is independent of whether it's rooted in racism is... sort of fascinating in its wrongness. Indeed, the fact that it's intended to provide alleged benefits for members of some racial groups, at the real expense of members of other racial groups, matters a great deal, as does the fact that the assumptions it implicitly rests on are rooted in discredited theories about human beings.
Yet if they really are motivated by racism[1] then pointing this out isn't "impugning their motives", but is actually discussing the issues at hand. Unless, of course, you think the boundaries of relevance are determined by whatever is most convenient for you and/or Trump.
[1] And I have pretty clear recollections that Richwine did commit to the genetic inferiority of non-whites even if, in some sense, he didn't have to.
It’s not my object to ‘defend’ anyone against charges of ‘racism’ because such charges are, in most circumstances, humbug.
You're the one who insisted it was wrong to impugn the motives of anti-immigration activists on the grounds that they are motivated by racism. Given that Richwine's complaints are rooted in his claims that Latinos are genetically inferior, he seems to be an absolutely perfect example of what Chip Daniels is talking about.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Challenges to the Alt-Right and Identitarians”
No, because I assume, on the basis that their ideology is self-evidently corrupt, that they have no insight at all into what's actually wrong.
Maybe there are real social trends that are empowering them, but the idea that those real trends have anything at all to do with what they say is wrong with society is implausible in the extreme.
"
This seems bizarre. Why would it be a good idea to conflate legitimate criticism with one of the most thoroughly discredited ideologies there is, and one which is going to be axiomatically rejected by a large majority of people who don't qualify as "white"?
"
Many extreme ideologies promote war and conflict. That hardly means that they have any merit as descriptions of reality.
I could say that, but I won't. What I will say is that, just because they're acting like they're pushed around doesn't mean they are being pushed around. Sure, they may say as much, but given the whole "lunatics and frauds" thing mentioned above, I see no reason to care what they say.
I can discount their point of view without discounting them as a threat.
"
Let's assume, arguendo, that they're doing the same thing as the members of other "identity" groups--the same other "identity" groups that, they claim, are unfit to participate in the same polity as they are because they somehow lack the resources[1] to fit into a civilized society. Now they want to adopt the organizing strategies and political structure of those very groups?
This suggests to me that they're either complete idiots or frauds. Either way, why would I somehow treat their "push back" as something to give me pause?
[1] Frequently, they insist, these resources are genetic
"
Well, they aren't just in favor of "Western culture", but traditional, bygone "Western culture", and then they shun the products of that supposed culture in favor of commercialized products of our contemporary, allegedly debased age.
"
Of course. It's because they hate the actual culture of the West, and want to replace it with something completely different. The idea that they're trying to construct an "'authentic' identity divorced from the civic nationalism practiced in western societies," is a pretty big tell.
Also, the whole bit where they insist that race is totally a real thing but can't decide whether Caucasians are Caucasian is pretty funny.
On “Paul David Miller: Let’s Resurrect The Federalist Party”
But I also think that liberals push for judicial or legislative change when hey don’t have the patience for social change at a natural pace.
Certainly, but again I don't think this is a particularly meaningful charge, because it describes such a wide variety of policies, left, right and center, and, for that matter, good, bad and indifferent.
"
I think I accidentally deleted a reply I was trying to edit.
I think the statement is too vague to rebut. The issue isn't that "you guys" do it too, it's that it's all to easy to see ways to make the criticism fit almost anything you guys do.
On “Obama’s Pick Would Help the Court. (Liberal Causes, Not So Much.) – Bloomberg View”
It matters whether he's more or less liberal than Breyer or Kagan, but if he's more liberal, it's doesn't really matter whether he's a lot more liberal.
On “It’s Time for Mitt Romney to Save the Day”
OK, the way it looks to me, Cruz is a hella longshot even if he does pull out the GOP nomination. He's smart, but beyond that he seems to have essentially zero virtues as a general election candidate. I can't see a quixotic Romney run shifting that enough to really affect his calculus.
On the other hand, I think Kasich has a fair number of virtues as a general election candidate, but is like, I dunno, a better Mitt Romney. "Establishment" and "centrist" cred aside, he's guilty of less serious heresies than Romney was[1], he's a better natural politician than Romney[2], and he's governor of perhaps the most important state in play in the coming election. What constituency is going to prefer Romney to him?
[1] Nothing like Romney's conspicuous flip-floppery on abortion, and "accepting the Medicaid expansion" seems like less of an issue to "implementing the model for Obamacare".
[2] A low bar to clear, sure, but HRC isn't exactly electrifying either.
On “Freddie: C’mon, Guys.”
What fucking ever, sparky.
Well, that and he was actually placed in a chokehold, which were banned by the NYPD because they are known to sometimes result in death or serious injury. But since a cop did that and he was black guy who was maybe doing something kinda bad, his death is all on him and his bum heart.
Your argument is unassailable. All you had to do was put your goalposts on Ganymede.
"
There are also reasons that Ferguson in particular was primed for that kind of explosion in response to even a murky, possibly justified shooting. The policing there, Brown's death aside, was a horrible, revenue-generating racket.
"
Oh, I'm so very, very sorry that I said "strangle" when I meant "choke". It's a truth universally acknowledged that "imprecision" and "l[ying] brazenly" are exactly the same thing.
Of course, it's not like the medical examiner's report supports your claims in the slightest, since it attributes Garner's death to the chokehold he was placed in, not an unrelated medical condition.
"
In other words, you have no way of distinguishing between a trend that started at the end of Dinkins' term and the beginning of Giuliani, such a trend would have been in keeping with broader national trends, and you've provided no evidence whatsoever that the specific policies in question that de Blasio has ended were responsible for NYC's decline in homicide rates.
Which is about what I expected.
"
The most effective of which involve building trust between those police and the communities living in them. Shooting people randomly--for, say, opening the door to let cops into the building when someone else called them for help--tends to conflict with that.
That being said, it's rather bracing to bring up a grievous failure of law enforcement as a defense of law enforcement organizations.
The argument that changing policies of prior administrations that began after homicide rates in NYC started declining is tantamount to throwing away those gains... isn't terribly persuasive.
"
Emphasis mine. I can't say I'm terribly surprised to see you suggest that it's no big deal if the cops, say, strangle someone for maybe selling loose cigarettes or carrying a knife that kinda sorta looks like it might be illegal.
On “In Which I Am Smarter Than Neil deGrasse Tyson (About Painful Animal Sex)”
Go watch footage of elephant seals mating
No.
On “Trumpism in a Nutshell”
Which is why "Piss Christ" was destroyed by vandals
Expensive non-solutions to real problems are not a notable improvement over expensive non-solutions to non-problems.
On “A Post-Trump Landscape — The Buckley Club”
I disagree with Stillwater's assessment of the article[1], but I doubt the issues are ideological. I have no idea if the author is thoughtful when it comes to matters of policy, despite the fact that they're thoughtful about politics[2].
[1] OK, it wasn't perfectly written, but what is in this debased age of blogs and Tweets and hot takes and, um, Ordinary Times comments.
[2] The two kinds of thoughtfulness just aren't remotely the same. One of the most thoughtful folks I've met online, when it came to party politics, was a tedious, partisan dullard on policy, and it seems like there are legions of insightful policy wonks who understand precisely dick-all about party politics.[3]
[3] I, of course, am a shining beacon of brilliance when I discuss politics, policy, or, for that matter, anything else.
"
This seems a mix of insightful observations and stuff that verges (rather ironically) on conspiracy theory. The latter might be an issue with the writing and presentation, but there seems to be this assumption that members of the Trump coalition want to see Trump fail, and I think that's a bit hard to swallow. I think a lot of people are behind Trump despite knowing that he's completely full of shit because the ways he's full of shit read (to them) like a signal that they can trust him to look out for their interests. I think this is a catastrophically bad way to choose a candidate to support, but, importantly it's not a delusional or insane way to pick a candidate.
Also, the nominee could still be Cruz, or it could (somewhat more implausibly) be someone else following a brokered convention. Both, I think, would pose serious problems for the GOP, but they would be different problems.
On “Teachers of the Left and Right Should Support Common Core”
That's great if you're talking about adults, but we're talking about kids here, and, almost definitionally, they can't just get up and leave if they're being ill-served by their educations, nor are they really in any position to know when they're being well-served by their educations.
Consider a community where they believe that girls should have a sharply constrained education compared to boys, for reasons which surely make sense to them. Should we accede to their wishes, or are we just negotiating price?
This strikes me as incoherent. The idea that we can make this distinction between matters of fact and science and fundamental matters of value is, in and of itself, making a determination based on a set of values. Certainly, some people believe that matters of morality are matters of fact, and others believe that, given the choice between believing (say) religious scripture and your own lying eyes, you should choose scripture every time.
"
This seems like the kind of argument that proves too much--in particular, it seems to suggest that one should teach virtually nothing, as there is virtually nothing that can be taught that members of some communities in a pluralistic culture won't conceivably object to.
On “Robert Kagan: To Republicans afraid to take a stand against Donald Trump: Grow up – The Washington Post”
The idea that the utility of a policy perspective in question is independent of whether it's rooted in racism is... sort of fascinating in its wrongness. Indeed, the fact that it's intended to provide alleged benefits for members of some racial groups, at the real expense of members of other racial groups, matters a great deal, as does the fact that the assumptions it implicitly rests on are rooted in discredited theories about human beings.
"
Yet if they really are motivated by racism[1] then pointing this out isn't "impugning their motives", but is actually discussing the issues at hand. Unless, of course, you think the boundaries of relevance are determined by whatever is most convenient for you and/or Trump.
[1] And I have pretty clear recollections that Richwine did commit to the genetic inferiority of non-whites even if, in some sense, he didn't have to.
"
It’s not my object to ‘defend’ anyone against charges of ‘racism’ because such charges are, in most circumstances, humbug.
You're the one who insisted it was wrong to impugn the motives of anti-immigration activists on the grounds that they are motivated by racism. Given that Richwine's complaints are rooted in his claims that Latinos are genetically inferior, he seems to be an absolutely perfect example of what Chip Daniels is talking about.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.