Civil Rights group revealed to be investigated by FBI for 'Terrorism' while 'KKK' violence ignored

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Catnip1024:

Something Amyss:

Catnip1024:

Your problem is that you are so obsessed with the moral rightness aspects of the discussion that you allow it to prevent you from making actual objective comparisons.

My problem is that I'm concerned with whether things are accurate, and you had to pretend the guy who hated BLM was somehow related to BLM because you desperately needed an example to compare to Nazis. The facts don't bear out your lie, and you don't like that.

You're about as objective as I am a witch.

So he was acting on the same issues as BLM, timed his act to coincide with the protest, but hated them? Source plx.

Various excerpts originally sourced via the wikipedia article on it.

During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that ?he was upset about Black Lives Matter,? Chief Brown said. ?He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.?
- New York Times

So whether or not he was part of the protest, he was clearly influenced by it. That's the thing about protests - you don't have to show your membership card to rock up...

Officials said they had found no evidence that the gunman, Micah Johnson, 25, had direct ties to any protest or political group, either peaceful or violent, but his Facebook page showed that he supported the New Black Panther Party, a group that has advocated violence against whites, and Jews in particular.

Charmin' fella. Who was actually kicked out of said supposedly militant group for being too militant.

Admittedly, the guy probably had some severe mental health issues, and had been through a lot. But still.

See, you're doing something you definitely don't want to do. You complain and complain that people like myself accuse you of being a right-winger cause you say right-wing things and defend right-wingers, but now you condemn this man for being ever so slightly associated with a group he claims he is not part of.

You are doing to him what you criticize people like me for doing to you.

Saelune:
See, you're doing something you definitely don't want to do. You complain and complain that people like myself accuse you of being a right-winger cause you say right-wing things and defend right-wingers, but now you condemn this man for being ever so slightly associated with a group he claims he is not part of.

You are doing to him what you criticize people like me for doing to you.

I'm condemning the man for being a violent criminal who murdered five people. Might want to stop and think about that context before posting things like that.

Something Amyss:
snip

Ah, taking isolated portions of quotes out of the wider context. Good old internet discussions. But yeah, ciao.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
See, you're doing something you definitely don't want to do. You complain and complain that people like myself accuse you of being a right-winger cause you say right-wing things and defend right-wingers, but now you condemn this man for being ever so slightly associated with a group he claims he is not part of.

You are doing to him what you criticize people like me for doing to you.

I'm condemning the man for being a violent criminal who murdered five people. Might want to stop and think about that context before posting things like that.

Something Amyss:
snip

Ah, taking isolated portions of quotes out of the wider context. Good old internet discussions. But yeah, ciao.

Except you want to bring BLM down with him. But what about the Synagogue shooter? What about the man who sent all those bombs?

Saelune:
Except you want to bring BLM down with him.

And brought this up only in context defending white nationalists.

Since we're so concerned with context.

"More people died at an event that when you look it up doesn't back up my claims than at this specific instance we're talking about!"

Clearly, this reflects poorly on black people, but not Nazis., not the people who used violent rhetoric and advertised their rallyb as an attempt to end Jewish influence in America.

Catnip1024:
It happens all over the shop. It doesn't have to have been done by this particular group to make it an issue. It happens when one accuses (say) Jordan Peterson of being a fascist. He's a conservative and a contrarian, but faaar from a fascist.

How do you know that Jordan Peterson isn't a fascist?

If he was a fascist, how would you be able to tell?

Again, you're fixating on a question which can't be answered and thus doesn't matter. We cannot ever really know who is and is not a fascist, and we certainly can't judge who is and isn't a fascist purely based on who self-identifies as a fascist. Rather than fixating on who does or does not meet the terminological label of fascist, the better option is to consider who is doing fascism, who is doing the most to advance the cause of fascism.

Peterson may not identify a fascist, but the view of the world he expresses is in some ways very fascist. He is anti-utopian and anti-egalitarian. He believes that some people are just inherently better than others and belong at the top of the social hierarchy, and if you read between the lines it is clear that by "people" he means white, cisgender, straight men. Peterson also believes that suffering is an inevitable and in fact desirable part of human experience, which in practice means that efforts to alleviate the suffering of marginalized groups is wrongheaded because that suffering is, in fact, natural and desirable. In essence, if you're not someone who belongs at the top of the hierarchy, you're supposed to suffer and thus we don't have to care about it. He believes that any kind of doctrine which advocates or teaches equality or historical redress is simply the expression of mindless, inarticulate hate on the part of the undeserving against their betters.

Then there's the conspiracy theory angle. Peterson believes that some kind of undefined elite has infiltrated the intellectual establishment and continuously pushed or encouraged these equality doctrines both intentionally and with open malice towards society. Although this elite may appear to have very different ideas or even to criticise each other, they are all secretly on the same side and are pursuing the same ultimate goals. In essence, there is a timeless, immortal enemy which is somehow able to perfectly infiltrate society and corrupt its intellectual institutions by turning them against themselves.

And if you're familiar with fascist or Nazi worldview or its propaganda, all of this is very familiar. Some of it may be coincidence, I'm personally willing to guess that Peterson's anti-egalitarianism comes more from taking Nietzche too seriously (and also fundamentally misunderstanding basic points about Nietzche) than from Giovanni Gentile, but again, in practice I don't think it matters. He is still saying the same thing.

And this is without getting into some of the really weird stuff like the overt Nazi apologism (it's okay guys, they were just acting as the authentic voice of the German nation, they didn't really hate Jews or anything!)

Let me put it this way. If someone claims not to be a fascist, but is somehow incredibly popular among fascists, is perfectly comfortable hanging out with or sharing a platform with fascists and is openly courting fascists by using symbols and ideas with roots in fascism, something is going on, isn't it? It's not enough for that person to say they aren't a fascist. It's not even necessarily enough if they genuinely don't think they are a fascist. They're still doing fascism, and whether or not someone is doing fascism is a better measure of whether someone is a fascist than whether they self-identify as a fascist.

It is Wednesday.

Catnip1024:
Well, for starters, targetting people who don't really fall under the label but who you disagree with.

But targeting people on the basis of their ethnicity is fine?

Because you don't seem to have understood the point. How is "going too far" in this case actually worse than what you're already accepting as normal or appropriate?

It is Wednesday.

Catnip1024:
If you think that you are sufficiently above the law that you can decide who lives and who dies better than the system set up on the combined knowledge and morality of society, you are totally the wrong person to be making that judgement.

Would you be comfortable with that statement being applied to the Holocaust, or the Great Purge, or the Armenian genocide?

Again, there is something incredibly authoritarian about the idea that state violence is always justified, and non-state violence never is. I can understand a degree of fear at the possibility of non-state violence, but allowing fear to suppress the desire for justice is just an excuse for your own cowardice. The Germans who stood by and watched their neighbours herded off to the ghettos and who felt some twinge of moral conscience probably also rationalized themselves by pretending that they were the wrong person to make the judgement..

It is Wednesday.

Catnip1024:
I mean, why do you think such a large part of the anti-extremism work in the UK is to bring communities together and to deal with the issues that people feel are based on race / etc?

I mean, yes, but that's not a good thing..

One of the major criticisms voiced in the 2011 Prevent strategy review was that lot of money intended to combat extremism was being spent on projects promoting cohesion and integration without any clear link to combating terrorism or extremism, and that this was taking money and focus away from actual work to identify and support vulnerable people who were at risk of radicalization.

Actually, one of the central objectives of Prevent is the need to ideologically challenge extremist groups, and to involve communities in the work of challenging extremism. Far right extremists should face opposition. It's not about patting little junior on the head when he's drawing swastikas on the walls and screaming about white genocide because we need to make sure he's affirmed and doesn't become isolated, it's about actively challenging his racist ideology and hopefully getting him out of the networks which are spreading it.

It is Wednesday.

Catnip1024:
There's a difference between secluded violence down a dark alley and public violence in a crowd that's theoretically been organised by politically active groups.

Try both of them, and see if you still feel that way.

It is Wednesday.

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

It is Wednesday.

evilthecat:

Then there's the conspiracy theory angle. Peterson believes that some kind of undefined elite has infiltrated the intellectual establishment and continuously pushed or encouraged these equality doctrines both intentionally and with open malice towards society.

Not just Peterson.

"The idea of fairness has been promoted in our schools for a long time," Payne explained. "We're starting to see kids who grew up with this notion of fairness above all. Now they're becoming voting age, and they're bringing this ideology with them."

Just to be clear, the argument here is that this "ideology," that fairness is a virtue, is a bad thing.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-fairness-790220/

evilthecat:

Peterson may not identify a fascist, but the view of the world he expresses is in some ways very fascist. He is anti-utopian and anti-egalitarian. He believes that some people are just inherently better than others and belong at the top of the social hierarchy, and if you read between the lines it is clear that by "people" he means white, cisgender, straight men. Peterson also believes that suffering is an inevitable and in fact desirable part of human experience, which in practice means that efforts to alleviate the suffering of marginalized groups is wrongheaded because that suffering is, in fact, natural and desirable. In essence, if you're not someone who belongs at the top of the hierarchy, you're supposed to suffer and thus we don't have to care about it. He believes that any kind of doctrine which advocates or teaches equality or historical redress is simply the expression of mindless, inarticulate hate on the part of the undeserving against their betters.

I'm not a Jordan Peterson expert, but I've definitely heard him say inequality is bad and needs to be avoided for the stability of society, and I've definitely heard him say egalitarianism is fine but doesn't prevent voluntary gender segregation in careers. I don't know most of what he's said, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he says people should be at the top of the hierarchy or should suffer, but rather the quite obvious description that people are people do. Your description of him certainly sounds like a secret fascist pushing supremacist propaganda, but I think the problem is in your description, not his statements.

tstorm823:
I'm not a Jordan Peterson expert, but I've definitely heard him say inequality is bad and needs to be avoided for the stability of society, and I've definitely heard him say egalitarianism is fine but doesn't prevent voluntary gender segregation in careers. I don't know most of what he's said, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he says people should be at the top of the hierarchy or should suffer, but rather the quite obvious description that people are people do. Your description of him certainly sounds like a secret fascist pushing supremacist propaganda, but I think the problem is in your description, not his statements.

So, one of the major problems with Peterson, and another thing that is a very troubling if you're familiar with neo-Nazi propaganda (by the way, it is Wednesday) is that he seems to very deliberately speak a lot while saying as little as possible. His general strategy in conversation is to say something which seems really dumb, and then backtrack from it, and when someone keeps doing that over and over again, you have to start wondering whether they might actually be communicating something else (it is Wednesday).

So, lobsters.

Jordan Peterson brings up lobsters a lot, because lobsters have a hierarchy which can be broadly traced to the levels of seratonin in their very simple nervous systems. Lobsters with higher levels of seratonin become more aggressive and compete more fiercely for territory with other high Seratonin lobsters, meaning that a small group of lobsters end up dominating most of the available territory. Peterson uses this argument in two ways. The first is to argue that, because humans and lobsters use the same neurotransmitters, our hierarchy literally works in the same way as that of a lobster. "It?s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent?and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion.? Now, you're correct that this could be read as a description rather than a prescription.. but let's think about it.

See, if this is a descriptive claim, Peterson is wrong. Not just a little wrong. Extremely wrong. In reality, seratonin in lobsters works completely differently to the way it works in humans. In humans and other complex mammals, low levels of seratonin are actually associated with increased behavioural aggression. Just because the chemicals our bodies use are found elsewhere in nature doesn't mean they work the same way. Plants produce seratonin, and yet plants have no natural hierarchy and no nervous system, not even the very primitive nervous system of a lobster.

So either Peterson is just an idiot (which is a valid interpretation because.. you know, ancient egyptians knew about DNA) or the point isn't actually meant to be descriptive at all.. it's actually prescriptive, or worse still, intentionally meaningless (it is Wednesday). And here is where we get to part two of Jordan Peterson's adventures in Lobster Town, because Jordan Peterson believes that this lobster hierarchy is the reason why lobsters are able to coexist peacefully. If all lobsters had high seratonin, they'd constantly be fighting over territory, but because some lobsters have low seratonin, because some lobsters aren't a threat, they can coexist with the dominant lobsters within the same territory without the need for aggression, and this isn't just lobsters. This is how Peterson views all society. "The evidence that hierarchies in the Western world at least are predicated on competence is the fact that the damn lights are on and there isn?t rioting in the streets."

So what specifically are these hierarchies which are predicated on competence? Well, it may interest you to know that Peterson believes there are non-trivial IQ differences between ethnic groups. Yes, black people are, on average, just naturally less intelligent than white people. However, Peterson himself has never drawn explicit connection between these two facets of his own expressed worldview. It is Wednesday. Seriously, do not connect these statements. It is Wednesday. These different views expressed in different contexts have no bearing on each other. It is Wednesday.

image

Here is Jordan Peterson. Devon Huxtable, the guy posing to his left making a white power sign, is a white nationalist. Alex Van Hamme, to the right, claims not to be a white nationalist but rather a "white advocate", which is a totally different thing because they are different words.

It is Wednesday. I'm not actually saying it is Wednesday, but are you Wednesday what we're Wednesday?

evilthecat:

Jordan Peterson brings up lobsters a lot, because lobsters have a hierarchy which can be broadly traced to the levels of seratonin in their very simple nervous systems. Lobsters with higher levels of seratonin become more aggressive and compete more fiercely for territory with other high Seratonin lobsters, meaning that a small group of lobsters end up dominating most of the available territory. Peterson uses this argument in two ways. The first is to argue that, because humans and lobsters use the same neurotransmitters, our hierarchy literally works in the same way as that of a lobster. "It?s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent?and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion.? Now, you're correct that this could be read as a description rather than a prescription.. but let's think about it.

See, if this is a descriptive claim, Peterson is wrong. Not just a little wrong. Extremely wrong. In reality, seratonin in lobsters works completely differently to the way it works in humans. In humans and other complex mammals, low levels of seratonin are actually associated with increased behavioural aggression. Just because the chemicals our bodies use are found elsewhere in nature doesn't mean they work the same way. Plants produce seratonin, and yet plants have no natural hierarchy and no nervous system, not even the very primitive nervous system of a lobster.

You don't think there is a natural hierarchy in plants? They literally compete in growth and blot out the sun, stunting the growth of plants beneath them. I don't think he chose lobsters because they have exceptionally similar biological functions to humans, I think he chose lobsters because they don't have that. He could easily choose any pack animal to compare humans to, but the point isn't to claim that humans are hierarchical because of some specific chemical, it's just to claim that hierarchies aren't an arbitrary invention of human societies, so any claims based on that assumption are going to fall apart. Just like egalitarian societies, if hierarchy was totally artificial, you wouldn't find different behaviors and levels of success among a population with the same opportunities and a guaranteed quality of life, but you do find those things.

So what specifically are these hierarchies which are predicated on competence? Well, it may interest you to know that Peterson believes there are non-trivial IQ differences between ethnic groups.

But like, it's not that he believes that. It's not an opinion. That's the real numbers. There are non-trivial differences. What that signifies is a question of what IQ is actually measuring, if it's measuring something significant, and whether or not that can be corrected. And if you take the viewpoint that race is not so much a biological identity as it is a sociopolitical one, escaping these trends should absolutely be possible. But that doesn't mean these differences don't exist right now, it's not a matter of his opinion.

And I think he very much is drawing the line between those two things, but that's still not a prescription. To say "whatever IQ is actually measuring goes a long way towards explaining the different representations of race in the levels of human hierarchy" does not say that variance in representation is good or even natural. I don't know if he thinks there should or shouldn't be better representation of black people on the social and economic ladders, but if a strategy that pulls up black IQ is what would accomplish that goal of representation, we shouldn't be shying away from evidence that suggests that IQ is a racial disadvantage.

That picture is pretty incriminating, but it's people's words that I'm worried about, and I don't think his words make him a white supremacist. Even if he was describing a culture of white supremacy, it's not typically white supremacists that describe modern society as white supremacy, it's people fighting against them. White supremacists tend to spend their time claiming non-whites sit atop the hierarchy of whatever country they're in in order to blame them for problems. I don't think a viewpoint that includes "yes, white people are on top of the hierarchy and also the world is full of abject suffering" is intended to advocate for white supremacy. That's what bothered me most about your post earlier, the claim he says that pain is desirable. I can't find any evidence he's ever said anything at all about pain and suffering being remotely desirable, and if he has, my opinion of him will drop fairly swiftly because that does paint everything else he says in a very different color.

tstorm823:

evilthecat:

Peterson may not identify a fascist, but the view of the world he expresses is in some ways very fascist. He is anti-utopian and anti-egalitarian. He believes that some people are just inherently better than others and belong at the top of the social hierarchy, and if you read between the lines it is clear that by "people" he means white, cisgender, straight men. Peterson also believes that suffering is an inevitable and in fact desirable part of human experience, which in practice means that efforts to alleviate the suffering of marginalized groups is wrongheaded because that suffering is, in fact, natural and desirable. In essence, if you're not someone who belongs at the top of the hierarchy, you're supposed to suffer and thus we don't have to care about it. He believes that any kind of doctrine which advocates or teaches equality or historical redress is simply the expression of mindless, inarticulate hate on the part of the undeserving against their betters.

I'm not a Jordan Peterson expert, but I've definitely heard him say inequality is bad and needs to be avoided for the stability of society, and I've definitely heard him say egalitarianism is fine but doesn't prevent voluntary gender segregation in careers. I don't know most of what he's said, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he says people should be at the top of the hierarchy or should suffer, but rather the quite obvious description that people are people do. Your description of him certainly sounds like a secret fascist pushing supremacist propaganda, but I think the problem is in your description, not his statements.

Jordan Peterson is a sexist transphobic bigot who pretends to be an intellectual so that wannabe centrists can feel smart about their own sexist transphobia.

Saelune:

Jordan Peterson is a sexist transphobic bigot who pretends to be an intellectual so that wannabe centrists can feel smart about their own sexist transphobia.

I wouldn't respond to this, but I genuinely think you typed that incorrectly. I think you meant "he pretends to be centrist so that wannabe intellectuals can feel smart." Cause like, he is a professor, I don't think he's a pretend intellectual, and I really don't think his fans are "wannabe centrists", I think they're aware that they're further right than he is. But flipping those words makes a lot more sense, as one could both reasonably doubt Peterson's claims of being liberal and reasonably call his biggest fans "wannabe intellectuals".

tstorm823:

Saelune:

Jordan Peterson is a sexist transphobic bigot who pretends to be an intellectual so that wannabe centrists can feel smart about their own sexist transphobia.

I wouldn't respond to this, but I genuinely think you typed that incorrectly. I think you meant "he pretends to be centrist so that wannabe intellectuals can feel smart." Cause like, he is a professor, I don't think he's a pretend intellectual, and I really don't think his fans are "wannabe centrists", I think they're aware that they're further right than he is. But flipping those words makes a lot more sense, as one could both reasonably doubt Peterson's claims of being liberal and reasonably call his biggest fans "wannabe intellectuals".

Considering all the people who claim to be a centrist or moderate but are very decidedly right-wing.

Being an intellectual is about more than knowing a subject enough to teach it. Believing the stupid crap Peterson says definitely knocks him out of the running for the title. If he was truly an intellectual, he would stick to what he knows, and not think he knows more than that.

tstorm823:
He could easily choose any pack animal to compare humans to,

That is a myth.

This whole alpha wolf nonsense comes from incomplete observation that certain people picked up because they really liked the idea. A wolf pack is not led by the strongest wolves. It is led by the breeding pair and every other member is one of their pubs. Which will eventually after they become adult wolves. And similar things are true for most other pack animals.

There are non-trivial differences. What that signifies is a question of what IQ is actually measuring, if it's measuring something significant, and whether or not that can be corrected. And if you take the viewpoint that race is not so much a biological identity as it is a sociopolitical one, escaping these trends should absolutely be possible. But that doesn't mean these differences don't exist right now, it's not a matter of his opinion.

Yes, thee are differences. Do those differences come from :
1 - black and white people have different intelligence ?
2 - blacks are hampered in developing their intelligence to the same level as whites because of societal injustices ?
3 - IQ tests suck as far as accuracy is involved?
Considering that todays people no matter which skin color get significant better results on the same tests than people a decade ago and this trend is nearly consistend throughout the history of IQ tests, it is probably 2 or 3.

I don't know if he thinks there should or shouldn't be better representation of black people on the social and economic ladders, but if a strategy that pulls up black IQ is what would accomplish that goal of representation, we shouldn't be shying away from evidence that suggests that IQ is a racial disadvantage.

Millenials are far more ntelligent than baby boomers, if IQ-tests are to be trusted (even after correcting for age). Yet the latter still hold all the influential positions.

Now i don't really know eho this Peterson guy is or why people care for him. (Did Trump give him some important post and i missed it ?) But considering both your account and that of evilthecat, yes, he sounds pretty much like a typical white supremacist.

tstorm823:
You don't think there is a natural hierarchy in plants? They literally compete in growth and blot out the sun, stunting the growth of plants beneath them.

If you want to twist the definition of a hierarchy to the point where it becomes utterly meaningless, I guess you could say that.

I mean, maybe buildings have a natural hierarchy, because the height of buildings can be expressed as a vertical scale and buildings occupy different points on that scale. Does it mean anything? No. But who cares. Rise to the top of the building hierarchy, one clean room at a time.

tstorm823:
I don't think he chose lobsters because they have exceptionally similar biological functions to humans, I think he chose lobsters because they don't have that.

Right, but here's the thing. If that was the point, then I agree. Every respected neuroscientist agrees. Every expert on crustaceans agrees. Humans and lobsters are entirely different in terms of their biology, in terms of how nervous systems work, and in terms of how they behave. That's why it's meaningless to talk about lobsters when what you're really talking about is human social behaviour. That's why it's meaningless to make comparisons between lobster and human behaviour even if you percieve it as superficially similar, because the mechanism which produces that behaviour is different. The highly plastic mammalian brain is very, very different to the primitive ganglia of a lobster.

There is no reason to bring up lobsters at all unless you believe that lobsters can tell us something about human behaviour, and they can't, because in reality humans and lobsters are very different.

However, Jordan Peterson does not think they are. In fact, he claims that human and lobsters are so similar that human antidepressants work on lobsters. This is actually sort of correct, some anti-depressants do block seratonin uptake in the nervous systems of lobsters, but again, this does not have the same effect on lobsters as it does on humans. Peterson brings up lobsters because he does actually think humans and lobsters are the same. He can walk back on that and dance around it, but it is what he means. There is no other reason to bring up lobsters other than to claim that they are the same as humans.

I mean, you know who else has a hierarchy? Bees. Have a guess as to why Peterson doesn't talk about the natural hierarchy of bees..

tstorm823:
Just like egalitarian societies, if hierarchy was totally artificial, you wouldn't find different behaviors and levels of success among a population with the same opportunities and a guaranteed quality of life, but you do find those things.

No two human beings have the same opportunities and guarunteed quality of life.

In his more lucid moments, you could almost argue that this is the point Peterson himself is making. We all have relative advantages and disadvantages which shape our life experiences. But, the hierarchy is still artificial because the criteria for success within the hierarchy are artificial.

If we released Donald Trump into the African wilderness, he's just going to get eaten by a lion. Technically the most powerful man in the world, but if you took away that layer of protection ensured by wealth and security and a supportive society, he's meat. Old, fatty meat. The idea that there is a seamless transition from the Darwinian struggle for survival to late capitalism is the most silly and, yes, artificial idea imaginable.

tstorm823:
But like, it's not that he believes that. It's not an opinion. That's the real numbers. There are non-trivial differences.

Jesus, I really didn't think we'd have to do this.

The idea of "real numbers" in this case is interesting. Consider that the most famous example of IQ research into ethnic differences is essentially a piece of conservative policy research from the early 90s which argued for a eugenic policy of limiting immigration from countries with bad racial profiles. It was torn apart by academics working in the field of intelligence and found to be extremely suspect in its methodology.

A more recent piece of IQ research makes a really bizarre claim that Ashkenazi jews "evolved" to be more intelligent than their sephardic cousins over 800 years because they were worked as money lenders. Now, I probably shouldn't have to explain that this violates everything we know about evolutionary theory. It is essentially a Lamarckian argument (as a lot of scientific racist arguments are). The giraffes kept stretching their necks to reach the tall trees, and magically their necks grew long because the vital fluids were agitated.

So you are correct in that there are numbers. The numbers exist. But, the numbers are just not very good. The numbers are not accepted by the vast majority of people working in the field, and in most cases it's not particularly clear where the numbers even come from. If your opinion is that the numbers are trustworthy, then that is not an opinion that is supported by sufficient scientific consensus for you to pass it off as real numbers.

Like, I get that you've left room for the general problems with IQ research (namely, that IQ is not innate and is not a measure of intelligence) and those are relevant too. Congratualitons, you're a step above Jordan Peterson already, have a crumpled sticker I found in the trash and which smells slightly of racism, but there are bigger problems with scientific racism than just the inherent limits of IQ research. It's also just bad IQ research.

tstorm823:
White supremacists tend to spend their time claiming non-whites sit atop the hierarchy of whatever country they're in in order to blame them for problems.

You're making a very strange assumption that white supremacists are speaking in good faith, or trying to present a logically consistent position. Remember, it is Wednesday.

The ideology of white supremacy does not make sense. The ideology of the actual Nazis did not make sense. They were entirely aware that it did not make sense. How are white people simultaneously the superior race and natural masters of the world and yet constantly under threat and on the verge of extinction at the hands of their inferiors? It doesn't matter. Today is Wednesday. Racists is not interested in reason because racism is not a reasonable position, it is an emotional position. White supremacists blame non-whites for their problems because if non-whites were not responsible for their problems it would be foolish to hate them. White supremacists hate non-white people, therefore non-white people must be responsible for all problems.

The nature of liberalism is to look for rational meaning in every political position, to assume that everyone has some coherent internal logic which they can bring to the free marketplace of ideas, and then truth will win out by virtue of the power of rational persuasion. Fascists are not liberals, white supremacists are not liberals. They are not interested in being persuaded, they are not interested in finding the truth. They know that today is Wednesday, and somewhere, out there, someone listening also knows that today is Wednesday. That is all that matters.

If someone says something incredibly stupid, or meaningless, or obvious, and is told its incredibly stupid, and just keeps saying over and over again (it is Wednesday) you need to stop and ask whether the point was ever to persuade anyone, and whether this was ever an actual conversation, or whether maybe saying something ridiculous was in fact the point.

Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play.
- Jean Paul Sartre

evilthecat:

A more recent piece of IQ research makes a really bizarre claim that Ashkenazi jews "evolved" to be more intelligent than their sephardic cousins over 800 years because they were worked as money lenders.

Completely missed that. That is both sad and hilarious. Did it get published anywhere or is it just conspiracy drivel ?

evilthecat:
There is no reason to bring up lobsters at all unless you believe that lobsters can tell us something about human behaviour, and they can't, because in reality humans and lobsters are very different.

Well, they can tell us that we think boiling animals alive is okay. And while telling us that they should shake a claw at us and say 'That's not okay, dickhead'.

evilthecat:

Like, I get that you've left room for the general problems with IQ research (namely, that IQ is not innate and is not a measure of intelligence) and those are relevant too. Congratulations, you're a step above Jordan Peterson already, have a crumpled sticker I found in the trash and which smells slightly of racism, but there are bigger problems with scientific racism than just the inherent limits of IQ research. It's also just bad IQ research.

Everything I'm finding indicates it's not bad research. It may be bad interpretation of research, but that doesn't mean the measurements are wrong. From what I see, studies have found rather consistently a variation of IQ by race. And also a variation of IQ by region of origin. I don't think you can argue that the tests are inaccurate or inconsistent. But there's only a problem of racism in there if you think that race and IQ are biologically determined. If you, like I do, think that race is largely a social construct, and you consider the possibility that whatever IQ is measuring is impacted by social and environmental factors, it's really easy to say "well yes, there are other differences than skin color between France and Rwanda that might explain disparities in IQ measurement." I understand that pointing out the numbers difference gives white supremacists something to point at and go "yeah, look, whites are better", but pretending the differences are made up nonsense by bad research isn't right either. It's neither honest nor helpful to deny that different races have different advantages and disadvantages.

You made me watch a video of Jordan Peterson. When talking about racial disparities in IQ, he not only acknowledged the difficulty and vagueness in defining race to begin with, he said:

"You could say there are systemic biases in the performance measures and the potential measures, and that's a possibility."

He seems to me to be at least as informed as I am, and I hope even more so as he's spent a lot more years in school for it, and I have now actively seem him acknowledge the potential for racial bias effecting IQ studies. I'm not seeing the person you're describing.

That being said, if he really thinks pain is desirable and the people who are less fortunate by his description of the world deserve to suffer, I'm inclined to agree that his philosophy is lacking and he's leading people into problematic opinions. Otherwise, the studies of IQ aren't dependent on the opinions of Jordan Peterson, and I'm inclined to believe they'd be saying the same things without him.

tstorm823:
I understand that pointing out the numbers difference gives white supremacists something to point at and go "yeah, look, whites are better", but pretending the differences are made up nonsense by bad research isn't right either. It's neither honest nor helpful to deny that different races have different advantages and disadvantages.

What are IQ tests measuring?

The claim, because it's literally there in the name, is that they are measuring intelligence. That is to say, inherent variations in cognitive ability to perform various tasks.

Now, most researchers who work in the field of intelligence know that this is not true. IQ tests actually don't measure inherent variations in cognitive ability. If you practice IQ tests every day, your IQ will generally go up, which shouldn't be able to happen if IQ tests are measuring inherent cognitive ability. This is why most science in this area no longer uses IQ tests.

So, what are IQ tests measuring?

Now, you can say that people like Peterson understand the limitations of IQ research and are just neutrally presenting objectively true facts without prejudice. But what are these facts? What does variation in IQ mean? What is IQ measuring? If, as the vast majority of researchers accept, IQ isn't measuring anything, because it's not actually a measure of intelligence, then what is the point in claiming that there are ethnic differences in IQ? What does that actually mean, and if it doesn't mean anything what is the point in saying it?

But here's the thing. Most people don't actually know about the problems with IQ tests. Most people aren't aware that IQ tests don't measure intelligence, or that most researchers looking at intelligence don't use them. Most people still think that IQ is a measure of inherent differences in cognitive ability. The only reason to claim that there are IQ differences between ethnic groups is to trick those people into believing that there are inherent differences in cognitive ability between ethnic groups.

If you were interested in differences in inherent cognitive ability, you wouldn't use IQ tests. IQ tests don't measure inherent cognitive ability. So, by using IQ tests, what are you measuring? Why would you use IQ tests in your piece of research when they don't actually measure what you're claiming to measure?

The reason why most neuroscientists utterly reject this kind of scientific racism is not because there's a serious debate around the link between IQ and ethnicity, because there is no serious debate around IQ full stop. It's a discredited measure of human intelligence. Why use a discredited measure of human intelligence which isn't actually a measure of human intelligence? Why is it important that we pay attention to figures which aren't actually measuring anything? What is the significance of numbers which don't correspond to anything?

What did these researchers set out to prove or to say? What was the point they were trying to make, and why is it important that we factor this data, which of course doesn't actually measure anything, into our policy and understanding of the world?

It is Wednesday.

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

tstorm823:
You made me watch a video of Jordan Peterson. When talking about racial disparities in IQ, he not only acknowledged the difficulty and vagueness in defining race to begin with, he said:

"You could say there are systemic biases in the performance measures and the potential measures, and that's a possibility."

Right, but if you know anything about Jordan Peterson, you will know that he does not think systemic biases can exist. So why is he saying here that it's a possibility when his entire career has been built on mocking and discrediting the concept that such things can exist at all?

If you want the answer, think about how it would sound if he didn't. Think about what he would be openly saying if this disclaimer didn't exist.

I am not saying it is Wednesday.

tstorm823:

trunkage:
I dont think anyone said they dont have a file. The file is not a priority over Left wing files. Just because something is created, doesnt mean it gets used.

Well, the title of the thread says "while KKK violence ignored". The title is what I was criticizing, and making a file isn't quite "ignored".

The OT listed a specific incident where a person in a group got stabbed by a White Supremist but the victim was charged instead of the accused.

They used this case of ignoring as a jumping off point to explain their point of view. So ignore was appropriate. You could claim that White Supremists might not be KKK as incorrectly claimed (I don't think that was in the original post.) But that moment showed police ignore a violent situation

evilthecat:

If you were interested in differences in inherent cognitive ability, you wouldn't use IQ tests. IQ tests don't measure inherent cognitive ability. So, by using IQ tests, what are you measuring? Why would you use IQ tests in your piece of research when they don't actually measure what you're claiming to measure?

What is the significance of numbers which don't correspond to anything?

Right, if you were interested in inherent cognitive ability, you wouldn't use IQ tests. But there is no test for inherent cognitive ability, and there's reason to believe IQ tests are a relative measure of current cognitive ability. It's not that IQ corresponds to nothing, it corresponds to how accurately you answered questions on a test requiring cognitive ability. The fact that this may not be related to someone's inherent nature, and there is lots of reason to believe it isn't, doesn't means it's totally meaningless. Like, you could put kids through batting practice and rank who's better at hitting the baseball. The ranking is going to depend exceptionally little on people's inherent nature and almost entirely on who has the practice and experience at that particular task, but if you're trying to field a successful baseball team, measured success like that is exactly what you're looking for.

That's not nothing. Even if IQ isn't a measure of an inherent characteristic, and isn't a real measure of intelligence, if it's a real predictor of personal success, we shouldn't throw it out. If you have a metric that's good at predicting future success, and you have a segment of the population that both underperforms by that metric and suffers from economic equality, the metric might be the secret to breaking down the inequality. If you don't think IQ is inherent, that doesn't make it a useless measurement, that makes it more useful. If you think IQ is socially impacted, then dissimilar IQs is an invitation to social action.

Right, but if you know anything about Jordan Peterson, you will know that he does not think systemic biases can exist. So why is he saying here that it's a possibility when his entire career has been built on mocking and discrediting the concept that such things can exist at all?

Once again, I think you're saying things that aren't true. I don't think he thinks systemic bias can't exist. If he's willing to use nations ranked by egalitarianism in his arguments, he's accepting the premise that not all places are equally egalitarian. My experience with him before this conversation was primarily the one interview about professional differences between men and women, and I did not take away that he mocks the concept of systemic biases, I took away that he thinks that biases are insufficient to explain the different professional roles of men and women. That if you could get rid of all bias, you'd still have mostly female teachers and mostly male engineers, because women like children and men like bridges. You are welcome to disagree with that sentiment vehemently, but saying there are more differences between people than just societal constructs is not the same as saying there are no societal constructs.

You're pushing his arguments well into things he doesn't seem to believe, and even with those pushed arguments, you still have to claim that he's sending coded messages. If you have to read things he's not actually saying to make connections to before you can access the real meaning, that's one hell of an encryption.

evilthecat:
making a white power sign

Milk = white supremacy and OK sign = white power are both things that started as /pol/ "let's take something innocuous, see if we can get the 'liberal media' to bite on the idea that it's actually a white supremacist symbol to make them look insane to the normies" hoaxes. I'm a bit disappointed that it didn't work the third time, but they bit off more than they could chew with trying to make dabbing into a white supremacist symbol (like how OK was supposed to be "WP", dabbing was supposed to be "doing the Nazi salute while averting your eyes from the glory of Hitler" which was overly complicated and likely why it didn't catch and spread as well).

The irony of course being that to right wing conspiracy theorist nutters (for example, Vigilant Citizen) the OK symbol was known for at least a decade before that as a left-wing Luciferian media conspiracy symbol (symbolizing three sixes with the extended fingers being the tops of each 6 and sharing a loop), with that belief among right-wing conspiracy theorists originating from it's usage in Freemasonry. Also as an Illuminati symbol, especially if posed so that it surrounds an eye.

So, right wing nutters believed the symbol was a dog whistle for the Illuminati/Freemasons/Satanists trying to destroy the moral fabric of America through media manipulation (especially in the music industry) long before /pol/ pushed it as a white supremacist symbol as a way to fuck with the media (they got the idea from Media Matters, who appears to have declared it a hate symbol seemingly based entirely on Milo using it in photos taken after heavily protested speaking engagements), and once the media declared it a white supremacist dogwhistle it kind of stuck. It stuck better than milk, and way better than dabbing as symbols of white power. Probably because they tried to do it too many times too close together, like how free bleeding worked pretty well, but most of the other "start internet feminist campaigns to make feminists looks foolish" ops didn't work nearly as well.

Satinavian:
Now i don't really know eho this Peterson guy is or why people care for him. (Did Trump give him some important post and i missed it ?)

He's a professor and clinical psychologist who wrote a self help book. He got popular over a misunderstanding of Canadian law in which he was concerned that the bill that made being trans a protected class would compel usage of personal pronouns and make using the wrong pronouns for someone be considered hate speech.

His self help book essentially focuses around the idea of creating order starting from things you can control directly and moving outward from there. Hence people making cracks about "cleaning your room" because that's one of the first things he suggests, specifically because it is something wholly under your control so putting it in order is in his view a good starting place.

His popularity swelled after he did an interview in which Cathy Newman (the woman interviewing him) kept taking what he was saying radically out of context and "so what you're saying is" something entirely different from what he just said. This interview is the source of all the lobster talk around him -- he used lobsters as an example of hierarchy building in something that is pretty biologically distant from us intending to point out that hierarchies are something that doesn't originate socially, but is something that roots deep in our evolutionary history, at least as far back as common ancestry with crustaceans. "So what you're saying is, we should structure society after lobsters?"

As far as beliefs, as far as I can tell he's a Christian traditionalist conservative and a bit of a contrarian.

trunkage:
The OT listed a specific incident where a person in a group got stabbed by a White Supremist but the victim was charged instead of the accused.

They didn't charge the victim instead of the accused, that's a trick of how it's being described (and reported in some outlets to drive that specific narrative). See my previous post in this thread, she assaulted a guy and was caught on video doing so with it clearly being her. *THAT* is the assault she's charged with. Specifically, he was speaking with police after having already been attacked by protesters from her group once when she arrives, shoves him away from the police, punches him repeatedly in the stomach, knocks him down, and then a group of protesters start kicking him as he lay on the ground - at this point the police step in and retrieve him.

Getting stabbed by (presumably) a member of either TWP or skinheads after committing assault and rioting doesn't absolve the whole assault and rioting bit. She's not washed clean of her sins by the blood of her wound or something.

As for the TWP and the skinheads being armed, if I were protesting on that side in that area, I'd be armed too. There's a history of low-grade violent response from counter protesters there. Usually masked "antifascists" with improvised bludgeons (such as Eric Clanton's bike lock), pepper spray, and other aerosols (you know, because other items can blind an opponent if sprayed in their eyes which are cheaper or more readily available than pepper spray). I'd have plans in place to defend myself from exactly that if I were them.

trunkage:
But that moment showed police ignore a violent situation

They also let the guy she's charged with assaulting get shoved, repeatedly punched, knocked to the ground and kicked several times by a group before they took any action. This happened immediately in front of them and in full view. They could (and frankly should have) grabbed her when she started punching and arrested her. Then she wouldn't have been stabbed either, because she wouldn't have been involved in any further escalation later. But the police seem to be totally OK with "antifascist" violence right in front of them, unless it looks likely that they might actually beat someone to death.

Look, I know you want to go with the whole idea that this was a bunch of totally innocent peaceful counter-protesters who were stabbed by Nazis for no other reason than that they were there and disagreed, and then the pro-Nazi police arrested the victims and charged them with their own stabbings. It's such a convenient framing, but that just doesn't gel with the actual events.

tstorm823:
It's not that IQ corresponds to nothing, it corresponds to how accurately you answered questions on a test requiring cognitive ability.

So, IQ tests measure the ability to perform an IQ test..

So what's the point in measuring that? Why do it? What are you learning?

If your goal was to measure the likelihood of academic or career success, wouldn't you measure actual skills associated with academic or career success rather than IQ? Again, what does IQ tell us? Why is IQ important? What are we learning by using IQ? Why do advocates of this theory of ethnic differences in IQ profiling overwhelmingly seem to advocate eugenics if IQ is just a measure of learned skill? What is the point?

You know what the point is, you just don't want to see it.

tstorm823:
I don't think he thinks systemic bias can't exist. If he's willing to use nations ranked by egalitarianism in his arguments, he's accepting the premise that not all places are equally egalitarian.

Right, but systematic biases have to be.. you know.. systematic. Peterson doesn't have a problem with the existence of bias (although he doesn't actually think it's a problem, it's just something we have to live with to benefit from living in that lobster hierarchy) but he doesn't think it can be systematic. Peterson has been very clear that he believes there is no such thing as white privilege. There is no systematic bias in the treatment of ethnic groups.

So, if ethnic groups have differences in IQ testing, that cannot be the result of systematic bias against them, because if it were, then systematic biases would favour some ethnic groups over others. Therefore, differences in IQ between ethnic groups must be caused by...

Schadrach:
Milk = white supremacy and OK sign = white power are both things that started as /pol/ "let's take something innocuous, see if we can get the 'liberal media' to bite on the idea that it's actually a white supremacist symbol to make them look insane to the normies" hoaxes.

Sure, but clearly, the alt-right did not get the memo from /pol/ high command that this was a joke, because actual white nationalists and white supremacists still use the sign. This is an example of that occurring. If it were a joke intended to make the liberal media look silly, why would actual racists use it to communicate with? Don't mind me, just some racists sharing a joke about racism in a totally non racist way.

The point of crypo-fascism is to create a situation in which you can never tell whether something is or isn't a joke, or whether someone is a fascist hiding their power level or a clueless normie borrowing some edgy memes. The solution to this is the same solution I've consistently argued: look at the context. If someone keeps telling the same joke over and over, if they never get bored of telling the same joke again and again and somehow, a large audience of people consistently respond to the joke, then maybe.. just maybe it's not really a joke.

Stop thinking like a liberal. Stop thinking about what the "real" meaning is, stop taking what people say things mean at face value. Stop looking for reason, and look at what is actually being communicated. Not the "real" meaning, but the point of saying or doing something meaningless.

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

evilthecat:

If your goal was to measure the likelihood of academic or career success, wouldn't you measure actual skills associated with academic or career success rather than IQ?

IQ is an actual skill associated with academic and career success.

evilthecat:
Stop thinking like a liberal. Stop thinking about what the "real" meaning is, stop taking what people say things mean at face value. Stop looking for reason, and look at what is actually being communicated. Not the "real" meaning, but the point of saying or doing something meaningless.

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

So, stop thinking about what people mean, and instead about what negative connotations you can attach to them that only you (and people you influence) can hear?

You sure that's a game you want to play, because it's a game I've seen you actively reject when it's directed at people you share ideologies with? I mean, you (and several others here) will invoke definitions of terms as a way to dodge meanings implied in a similar fashion, so long as it's your ingroup.

Besides, by that logic, anything and everything is a white supremacist secret sign. How is it any different than what Vigilant Citizen does, in which he argues that much of the music business is the work of left-wing Satanists attempting to destroy Christianity and traditionalism through occult rites, with award shows actually being elaborate Satanic rituals disguised "just enough" to fool those who aren't in the know? Music videos are actually narratives about how the performer is a mind controlled slave serving under his/her Illuminati masters, etc, etc, etc. If you adopt his set of dog whistles, it's all right there in front of you. However, I expect you and I both consider him to be a nutter -- an exceptionally thorough nutter in a neatly consistent fashion, but a nutter nonetheless. The only real distinction is which dog whistles are being invoked.

Schadrach:
You sure that's a game you want to play, because it's a game I've seen you actively reject when it's directed at people you share ideologies with? I mean, you (and several others here) will invoke definitions of terms as a way to dodge meanings implied in a similar fashion, so long as it's your ingroup.

So, here's the difference.

I am not an antifascist actor at the moment, but I am still an antifascist. I believe in the imperative to oppose fascism by any means necessary. This is not to say that I necessarily support all antifascist action, let alone all political violence originating by left wing sources, but my objection to those actions is not moral, but based on my assessment of the degree of necessity. I believe that the value of actions, including violent actions, is measured by intent and consequences, not by legality.

So, I imagine you probably find what I have just deeply wrong and disturbing. But, and listen closely because this is important, I still told you anyway.

My goal is not to pass my beliefs off as acceptable to you so that I can get you to vote for people who support my political ideology and ultimately wind up in a position where we can put our vision of a pure world into effect, herd far-right supporters into cattle cars and take them away to be systematically gassed by the thousands. I do not have that kind of nefarious intent, so I do not need to hide it from you. I can be entirely honest about the consequences of my beliefs and what they entail because even if you find them ugly, I think they are valuable and I believe I can defend them using reason.

You talk about my "ingroup", but I don't talk any differently to my ingroup than I do to you. I don't talk about free speech in public, and then in private switch to "gas the k*kes, race war now". If you feel decieved by me, then fine, but I am not intentionally decieving you.

What's interesting to me about the alt-right is that they assume the left works like they do. That's why they are constantly looking for the left wing dog whistles, and why they think innocent academic terms like "intersectionality" and "white privilege" have secret hidden meanings which the cultural marxists/postmodern neomarxists/globalists/zionists/new world order/[insert anti-semitic conspiracy] are trying to indoctrinate people with, because that is literally how they work and how they think the world works. This is how they think politics is done. Noone sincerely believes anything they say, evidence is all made up, everything is fake news, everyone is motivated by gut feelings and hatred. Politics is a game where you try to trick everyone into giving you power so that you can kill them.

Sadly for them, it is not true. Most people don't think like they do. Most people are not broken the way they are broken. Broken in different ways, perhaps, but still nothing like them.

Schadrach:
Besides, by that logic, anything and everything is a white supremacist secret sign.

Anything and everything can be a white supremacist secret sign. That doesn't mean it is.

White supremacy is not a rational position, and the way it is communicated often isn't rational, but emotional. If I put a burning cross on someone's lawn, the point is probably not to make a commentary on Christianity. The use of burning crosses by the KKK does have a symbolism, but the symbolism actually isn't important. The point is that if you're a black family and someone puts a burning cross on your lawn, it's not there to make a point, it's there as a threat.

Crypto-fascism is often really, really stupid and inane, but that's because fascism itself is stupid. Racism is incredibly stupid. Imagine being such a colossal sack of human failure that you think the value of a life is based on the colour of that person's skin. Do you really think people who are capable of not only rationalising that but treating it as a certainty are above anything. They're not. They are people who have checked so far out of any semblance of reason that engaging with them is pointless.

And yet, here's the scary thing. They can still win, because fascism doesn't operate on the level of reason, but on the level of emotion and aesthetics, in other words, propaganda and edgy memes. That's why we need to pay attention to people who say things which seem to be meaningless, who keep telling the same jokes over and over again, who keep putting burning crosses on people's lawns for some reason, because if they're not saying anything meaningful.. what are they saying?

evilthecat:

Schadrach:
Besides, by that logic, anything and everything is a white supremacist secret sign.

Anything and everything can be a white supremacist secret sign. That doesn't mean it is.

White supremacy is not a rational position, and the way it is communicated often isn't rational, but emotional. If I put a burning cross on someone's lawn, the point is probably not to make a commentary on Christianity. The use of burning crosses by the KKK does have a symbolism, but the symbolism actually isn't important. The point is that if you're a black family and someone puts a burning cross on your lawn, it's not there to make a point, it's there as a threat.

Crypto-fascism is often really, really stupid and inane, but that's because fascism itself is stupid. Racism is incredibly stupid. Imagine being such a colossal sack of human failure that you think the value of a life is based on the colour of that person's skin. Do you really think people who are capable of not only rationalising that but treating it as a certainty are above anything. They're not. They are people who have checked so far out of any semblance of reason that engaging with them is pointless.

And yet, here's the scary thing. They can still win, because fascism doesn't operate on the level of reason, but on the level of emotion and aesthetics, in other words, propaganda and edgy memes. That's why we need to pay attention to people who say things which seem to be meaningless, who keep telling the same jokes over and over again, who keep putting burning crosses on people's lawns for some reason, because if they're not saying anything meaningful.. what are they saying?

Again, how is this any different than that conspiracy theorist I mentioned before, who believes that the music and film industries, several major corporations, as well as members of the "world elite" are part of a left-wing Satanic/Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy to destroy Christianity and western culture? He has a set dog whistles he believes they use, and if you adopt his premise and set of symbols, you too can see secret Illuminati influence everywhere!

The biggest difference is that he's not engaging in violence with people on the basis of whether or not he sees them cover one eye (he considers one eye or a third eye as a symbol indicating that you're in with the Satanic Illuminati global agenda). Whereas my first post in this thread mentioned two examples of cases where someone who was not a fascist but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time were beaten and robbed by antifascists, in one case for ignoring them and in the other because the two Marines didn't know the secret sign the antifascists were invoking when asked "Are you proud?"

Schadrach:
Again, how is this any different than that conspiracy theorist I mentioned before, who believes that the music and film industries, several major corporations, as well as members of the "world elite" are part of a left-wing Satanic/Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy to destroy Christianity and western culture? He has a set dog whistles he believes they use, and if you adopt his premise and set of symbols, you too can see secret Illuminati influence everywhere!

So, dog whistling is specifically a political strategy. It's a political strategy for cloaking the objectionable nature of a political position by concealing it behind neutral language. For example, instead of "the white race", I might say "Western culture". But then when I talk about Western culture, I'm talking about things like heritage and ancestry, I'm talking about birthright. I'm talking about things which aren't really culture at all, so if you're paying attention it becomes obvious that what I'm really doing is talking about race.

The conspiracy theory example isn't dog whistling because it's not a political strategy. The conspiracy don't need political strategies, they have something more powerful. They have mind control. The "illuminati influence" isn't part of a political strategy because the illuminati are supposedly so powerful and invisible they don't have politics. It is a way of subconsciously altering people's thoughts through subliminal messaging, and while media and propaganda can certainly influence the thoughts and opinions of its audience, it's not magical in the way this alleged mind control is magical. Dog whistling isn't about brainwashing people to become racists, it's about making people who aren't racist think that you aren't racist, and that your racist political opinion isn't racist, while also signalling to other racists that you are a racist.

But because dog whistling is a political strategy and not magical mind control, there needs to be a shared understanding of what is being communicated. That's why a lot of far-right discussion is actually about dog whistling, and how to tailor the message to best decieve people.

Once we?re in a position where we control the British broadcasting media then perhaps one day the ?British people might change their mind and say, ?Yes, every last one must go ... But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with you?re not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.

Keep the long term goals covert and never reveal your power level. Talking openly about a white ethnostate only leads to failure and the average public turning against you, so disavow anyone who reveals his power level. Leftists will recognize dog whistles and know we're crypto, but normies won't listen to them.

But even if this doesn't represent a broadly held position (which it does) there is a clear, obvious difference between how members of the alt-right speak in public and how they speak among other members. We know, because unlike a secret all powerful conspiracy, the alt-right are actually not very good at hiding the way they speak in private. Or, to put it more accurately, they are aware that they can't hide it, but are also aware that the only people who will look are those who are already too aware to fall for dog whistles. Dog whistles rely on a degree of complacency, because again.. they're not magical mind control, but a thing that actually exists and takes conscious effort to put into practice.

Conspiracy theories are by definition grandiose. The illuminati is vast, powerful and completely invisible. The lack of evidence for the existence of the conspiracy is taken as evidence of their ability to perfectly conceal themselves. Their methods of control are, almost by definition, supernatural in their degree of efficiency and organisation (even if they don't involve outright magical abilities like mind-reading or coercive mind control, which many conspiracy theories do involve). Conspiracy theories are a symptom of paranoia, an irrational belief in a persecutor who can't be demonstrated but who has to exist. Believing in the existence of bad actors, or people who use political arguments in bad faith, is not a conspiracy theory. It's an observationally verifiable truth about the world and its political climate. It's a truth openly espoused by respected political strategists and the leaders of political movement who openly talk about acting in bad faith.

Just because the planet Nibiru does not exist does not mean the planet Neptune does not exist.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here