Recently got a temp ban from KiA2 for very mildly acknowledging this fact. Just testing the waters here.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
That argument, even if we are going to accept it, is an 'is' and not an 'ought'. You cannot get an ought from an is, in other words, you cannot justify your own focus and behavior by saying that "oh, that is just an ingrained psychological mechanism".
My question is: why do you care about 'Jews', when woke Jews are just a subset of the people who are the problem (wokeists), and the vast, vast majority of Jews have nothing at all to do with it?
I don't agree. First of all, it's not 2% causing 50%, but (assuming that your numbers are right) 0.02% causing 50%. And the remaining 50% would then be caused by 0.98%. That is being generous, as it is the demented and reprehensible elites doing this.
Furthermore, I don't agree that a small population causing a lot of the subversion would be a problem. If anything, it would make things more difficult for them, as they generally have a harder time spreading their agenda than if the demographic is broadly based.
In order to cause the instability, or to get the information about whether this would cause the instability? Because most Jews today have not emigrated to Western countries in living memory, so that would not be a correct analogy in the former case.
I certainly do agree with you that a small group being disproportionately criminal creates resentment against that group. But that is quite different from the question, again, of whether this is justified - the is-ought.
They certainly did, until a certain event changed public sentiment.
Here, if you can understand me when I say "socially criminal (or maybe civically criminal?)" pretty much hits the nail on the head. A society is only as free as the laws it doesn't have to create to foster order and stability.
Yeah, the 1960s.
Meaning that multicultural societies inevitably have to suppress liberties in order to keep order and stability?
The 60s were... unfortunate. But really, Henry Ford wasn't out of the mainstream before WW2.
Precisely. Society wants stability first and foremost. Freedom will always be secondary to that. But it's been stated better than that:
Lately I have been trying to figure out where we went wrong. I can't really decide between 1789 (or even 1776) and 1914. Or maybe 1517.
It's two different issues I'd say. You can have two moral and religious peoples, that are still at loggerheads with each other. This is more saying that a government of liberty requires that people be able to restrain themselves.