Sorry wasn’t trying to be condescending, just don’t have power right now, spotty internet, can’t write any blog posts (20% chance of my comment disappearing by auto-refreshing when I change tabs) and I’m free for a few minutes at a time. And my douchebagery was in response to what I was getting (in addition to the obvious vote manipulation, though I’m not saying you have anything to do with that), I too dislike unproductive discussions, which is why I tried to make the distinction between giving TR blind support because he’s white, and analyzing him and his beliefs to determine that blindly supporting him would infact ultimately be counter productive to the stated goals. For example, do you think we should form our own version of the ADL and use similar tactics for a similar goal? Who should be our Leo Frank?
My response though, in a sentence, is to ask “do you see how having a belief of absolute racial supremacy is debatably synonymous with an unthinking belief”?
To the ADL question, on a belief level no, because I believe the ADL is not simply an overtly racialist institution but also surreptitiously a supremacist institution and an aggressor, and their tactics reflect that. If I believed they were simply acting simply as a racial defence institution I would be more sympathetic to mirroring them.
And to “do you see how having a belief of absolute racial supremacy is debatably synonymous with an unthinking belief?" No, I do not see those as synonymous. I can see how you could have an unthinking belief in racial supremacy, or you could reason yourself into it. It needn't necessarily automatically unthinking. Even if you want to debate that racial supremacy is always unequivocally wrong, doesn't mean it has to be unthinking, plenty of people can spend a long time thinking about something and still come to the wrong conclusion. Furthermore I wouldn't consider all unthinking beliefs to be synonymous just by virtue of being unthinking, the content of those beliefs still differentiates them from one and other.
And finally and most importantly I don't think unthinking racialism needs to be a belief system at all, it can be a conscious tactical defensive choice. If you look at a system pragmatically and judge that constant hesitation and case by case consideration will inevitably lead to immense suffering for those you care about and total loss of agency at the hands of more hasty aggressors. Then you can decide to adopt the inverse of the racialist heuristic used to rapidly organize against you so you can collectively react faster and defend yourselves more effectively. It's like a boxing coach telling a timid prospect "stop thinking about how to hit him and just hit him!" You'd say that knowing that the accuracy of his punches is going to drop if he listens to you, but understanding the higher quantity of his counter attacks is going to outweigh the reduced quality, and that might be the difference between him walking away to work on his accuracy and refine better techniques for the next fight, or ending his career flat on the canvas tonight.
To the ADL question, on a belief level no, because I believe the ADL is not simply an overtly racialist institution but also surreptitiously a supremacist institution and an aggressor, and their tactics reflect that. If I believed they were simply acting simply as a racial defence institution I would be more sympathetic to mirroring them.
Exactly my point. Instead of defending themselves logically, and taking due blame (Leo Frank), their unthinking supremacism leads to what can only be described as cultural poison or cancer, but what’s crazy is it’s not just poisonous to us, but them too. 109 and counting. The only way out that I see, is through. It isn’t just falling for the same old shit a 110th time.
And to “do you see how having a belief of absolute racial supremacy is debatably synonymous with an unthinking belief?" No, I do not see those as synonymous. I can see how you could have an unthinking belief in racial supremacy, or you could reason yourself into it.
Ahh, what I meant there was that if the masses are unthinking in their racialism, then it only takes one charismatic leader, one popular movement to turn the one into the other.
Even if you want to debate that racial supremacy is always unequivocally wrong, doesn't mean it has to be unthinking
I don’t want to get into any semantic weeds, but I definitely think absolutism has no place (only the sith something something something).
Your last point is interesting, I’ll wiggle out and say I agree with you but don’t see you as advocating racial absolutism there necessarily, just changing our baseline mindset towards inter- and intra-group interactions , which I support myself.
Ahh, what I meant there was that if the masses are unthinking in their racialism, then it only takes one charismatic leader, one popular movement to turn the one into the other.
Ah, got it. Yeah, that's always a risk. It's definitely not a perfect, risk free approach, which is why I was so insistent that it was only one potential response not the only one. But lacking any better ideas coming up in the meantime, we're already approaching the line where that risk may be better than the alternative.
I would say it's only a potential risk rather than an inevitable next step, especially for racialism adopted for tactical defensive reasons. That is a tool you consciously choose with the intention of putting it down when the job is done and the dust has not only settled but been swept up. It's "unthinking" in target selection but not in base rationale, so coming in with the same target selection but a completely different rationale is not necessarily going to trick everyone into changing tack unless it's done by a sufficiently proficient manipulator and competent pushback is absent.
Anyway, if you want out I'm satisfied I understand where you're coming from now. Good talk 🤜
Sorry wasn’t trying to be condescending, just don’t have power right now, spotty internet, can’t write any blog posts (20% chance of my comment disappearing by auto-refreshing when I change tabs) and I’m free for a few minutes at a time. And my douchebagery was in response to what I was getting (in addition to the obvious vote manipulation, though I’m not saying you have anything to do with that), I too dislike unproductive discussions, which is why I tried to make the distinction between giving TR blind support because he’s white, and analyzing him and his beliefs to determine that blindly supporting him would infact ultimately be counter productive to the stated goals. For example, do you think we should form our own version of the ADL and use similar tactics for a similar goal? Who should be our Leo Frank?
My response though, in a sentence, is to ask “do you see how having a belief of absolute racial supremacy is debatably synonymous with an unthinking belief”?
To the ADL question, on a belief level no, because I believe the ADL is not simply an overtly racialist institution but also surreptitiously a supremacist institution and an aggressor, and their tactics reflect that. If I believed they were simply acting simply as a racial defence institution I would be more sympathetic to mirroring them.
And to “do you see how having a belief of absolute racial supremacy is debatably synonymous with an unthinking belief?" No, I do not see those as synonymous. I can see how you could have an unthinking belief in racial supremacy, or you could reason yourself into it. It needn't necessarily automatically unthinking. Even if you want to debate that racial supremacy is always unequivocally wrong, doesn't mean it has to be unthinking, plenty of people can spend a long time thinking about something and still come to the wrong conclusion. Furthermore I wouldn't consider all unthinking beliefs to be synonymous just by virtue of being unthinking, the content of those beliefs still differentiates them from one and other.
And finally and most importantly I don't think unthinking racialism needs to be a belief system at all, it can be a conscious tactical defensive choice. If you look at a system pragmatically and judge that constant hesitation and case by case consideration will inevitably lead to immense suffering for those you care about and total loss of agency at the hands of more hasty aggressors. Then you can decide to adopt the inverse of the racialist heuristic used to rapidly organize against you so you can collectively react faster and defend yourselves more effectively. It's like a boxing coach telling a timid prospect "stop thinking about how to hit him and just hit him!" You'd say that knowing that the accuracy of his punches is going to drop if he listens to you, but understanding the higher quantity of his counter attacks is going to outweigh the reduced quality, and that might be the difference between him walking away to work on his accuracy and refine better techniques for the next fight, or ending his career flat on the canvas tonight.
Exactly my point. Instead of defending themselves logically, and taking due blame (Leo Frank), their unthinking supremacism leads to what can only be described as cultural poison or cancer, but what’s crazy is it’s not just poisonous to us, but them too. 109 and counting. The only way out that I see, is through. It isn’t just falling for the same old shit a 110th time.
Ahh, what I meant there was that if the masses are unthinking in their racialism, then it only takes one charismatic leader, one popular movement to turn the one into the other.
I don’t want to get into any semantic weeds, but I definitely think absolutism has no place (only the sith something something something).
Your last point is interesting, I’ll wiggle out and say I agree with you but don’t see you as advocating racial absolutism there necessarily, just changing our baseline mindset towards inter- and intra-group interactions , which I support myself.
Ah, got it. Yeah, that's always a risk. It's definitely not a perfect, risk free approach, which is why I was so insistent that it was only one potential response not the only one. But lacking any better ideas coming up in the meantime, we're already approaching the line where that risk may be better than the alternative.
I would say it's only a potential risk rather than an inevitable next step, especially for racialism adopted for tactical defensive reasons. That is a tool you consciously choose with the intention of putting it down when the job is done and the dust has not only settled but been swept up. It's "unthinking" in target selection but not in base rationale, so coming in with the same target selection but a completely different rationale is not necessarily going to trick everyone into changing tack unless it's done by a sufficiently proficient manipulator and competent pushback is absent.
Anyway, if you want out I'm satisfied I understand where you're coming from now. Good talk 🤜