Jump to content

Chaircat Meow

Members
  • Content count

    7,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Chaircat Meow

  • Rank
    70% wrong 30% right
  • Birthday 08/18/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

16,361 profile views
  1. Chaircat Meow

    US Politics: Sit Up Straight and Show Some Respect

    Shryke has already accused me of an obsession with domination, so I wouldn't want to dominate this thread through excessive posting, and had planned to limit my responses anyway. However, I think I will respond to you and to Yukle on this occasion. Let’s take a moment to recall where we have come from in this argument thus far. It began by distinguishing two different versions of anti-racism, which are both, of course, dependent on two different ideas of racism. My post in the old thread suggested that progressives believe racism is the expression of any preference for one’s own ethnic group if one’s ethnic group is the dominant (or ‘privileged’) group in the western world. The progressive may well think ethnic preference expressed by other non-white ethnic groups is small-minded, clannish and not very praiseworthy, but as we saw in the study by the University of Birkbeck, he doesn’t think it is racist in the sense that it is wicked. My second post argued that the progressive holds this view because he sees the western world gripped by a system of privilege and oppression, to a substantial degree racial/ethnic, which results in economic and cultural oppression of certain groups. So, by fighting against this system he is aiming for socio-economic justice; his concern with ethnic privilege is a means, not an end. And I think a glance back through the previous thread, without appealing to any other sources, would show the progressive does care very strongly about the implications of ethnic privilege. As regards immigration and ethnic change, it is this view of the western world as a system of privilege/oppression that leads the progressive to view with moral outrage what the conservative sees as relatively normal, if not always commendable, prejudice in favour of continuity and preference for the similar. Now, there is a history behind this vision of the western world as a system of privilege and oppression and of this system being conceived in racial terms (although it is conceived in other ways too, e.g. genders). I have hinted that it can be traced in part to the failure of the Marxist prophecies, the relative decline of the working class and the rise of a more identity based politics among the left. So, consider the fundamentals of your argument noted and addressed. As to whether the first paragraph you quoted is fanciful, well, the thread can judge. Certainly, there is no conspiracy behind mass immigration and the process began and reached the stage it is now at as much by accident as by anything else. And some of the sentiment behind open borders, especially where refugees are concerned, derives from nothing more complicated than concern for the suffering of others (and owes much to Catholic teaching). Yet, the progressive always praises ‘diversity’ as an unalloyed good, and this always means the introduction of other cultures into the western world, and never works the other way round: no progressive cares whether Argentina, Egypt or China gets more diverse. And what is good you presumably want more of, especially if it will weaken the oppressive structure you are already waging war against, as we have said. Finally, on a practical level, it can’t have failed to come to the attention of the left-wing parties who attract the most votes from ethnic minorities that importing more voters might advance their aims. So I am unconvinced that paragraph was anywhere near as fanciful as you think. I will address Yukle's point about the universities later.
  2. Chaircat Meow

    US Politics: Sit Up Straight and Show Some Respect

    My last post on racism, as I am sure you all remember, fell upon the board like a thunderbolt from Olympian Zeus and occasioned many squawks of liberal dismay. However, as was justly noted, the analysis was far from complete, constrained as I was by the fact no one likes an overlong post. So, in what follows, and perhaps in posts subsequent to this one, the logic of the conservative and progressive idea of racism will be explored further. We originally said that the progressive believes racism to be the display of any preference or favouritism for one’s own ethnic group but on further reflection it was revealed that this was not the full state of the case. The progressive’s opposition to ethnic preference is only a means to the destruction of what he sees as the historic and still prevailing power structure in the western world. For the progressive’s Marxist forefathers the dominant class was the bourgeoisie; for the present day liberal his foe is the white man, the purveyor of the white supremacy. In the progressive’s mind the white man sits at the apex of a hierarchy of oppression, his dominance exerted over those with different ethnicities and genders. He has oppressed the African-Americans for generations; he has oppressed females for much longer. His position of power affords economic benefits and intangible but all important ‘cultural’ advantages. I use the term ‘cultural advantages’ as the best shorthand for what follows, namely the inestimable benefit of living in a society, and among a set of institutions passed down by one’s ancestors, instinctively understood, the rules and particularities of which are adapted and even to a degree designed for one’s use. Often, when confronted with the idea that a great influx of newcomers alters the culture of a nation the progressive will plaintively bleat that he doesn’t know what this means but he clearly does understand the situation in reverse. He believes the culture and institutions of the country (in the west, anyway) are suited for the dominant ethnic (and religious) group but disadvantage (he thinks) other groups. So, the progressive pants at the thought of abolishing this supposed system of dominance and to do so he needs to uproot its foundations. The surest way of achieving this is to destroy the old ethnic and religious bloc. In the case of the United States it is best, in his view, if there are proportionately fewer white males and fewer Christians, because these represent the dominant class of the country. Mass immigration and diversity must be favoured; Christianity must be sedulously attacked. Moreover, a new administrative class, a canting priesthood, populated by liberals, must be set up and from all the universities enforce the creed that any opposition to the progressive’s identity politics arrives at unspeakable evil. It will be clear from the above that what the progressive aims at is very far removed from the classical liberalism of Locke, or even liberalism as a political creed, usually understood. The progressive is ideological, schematic, quasi-revolutionary. At some level he likely does believe in the basic presumptions of a more classical liberalism; he believes that society can be founded on a rational contract (Rawls), but he also supposes the current ethnic and religious majority are too sunken in their bigotry to behave rationally. He might also prefer to see society as a mass of atomized individuals, trading a certain amount of liberty for security and the benefits of cooperation (this maybe how he conceives himself, personally) but his belief in the need to overcome white supremacy leads him to suppose ethnic groupings are also in some sense the fundamental units of political analysis. The next post, should it be produced, will focus on the progressive's ideal end state and reveal how he conceives a future in which his ideas succeed.
  3. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    Anti-racism, like other crucial political concepts, such as liberty, is capable of a variety of definitions. Just as Isaiah Berlin divided liberty into positive and negative liberty, so we might divide anti-racism into two opposing forms. One we can call conservative anti-racism. This is the more restrictive definition. Conservative anti-racism denies the claim that some races or ethnic groups are superior to others and that the superior groups have the right to treat individuals belonging to the inferior groups in a way they would acknowledge as immoral if the individuals were part of their own group. Progressive anti-racism defines racism much more broadly, and affirms that any preference for one own’s race or ethnic group is deeply immoral. Clearly this differs from the first definition, because I can clearly prefer some individuals to others without behaving immorally towards the ones I do not prefer. In practical terms we can see this difference between conservative anti-racism and progressive anti-racism in the differing attitudes conservatives and progressives tend to take on the question of whether it is racist to express ethnic self-interest in immigration policy. In short conservatives do not tend to think expressing ethnic self-interest in immigration policy is racist, but a majority of progressives do (although there is a complication here, as we shall see). Ethnic self-interest is expressed in immigration policy where members of one ethnic group support the immigration of members of their own ethnic group, or oppose the immigration of members of different ethnic groups, with a view to increasing or maintaining their own ethnic group’s share of the overall population of the country in question. A study by the University of Birkbeck (London), conducted shortly after the triumph of Trump, revealed the following about the attitudes of Trump and Clinton voters on the racism of ethnic self-interest as expressed in immigration policy. The survey found that 73% of white Clinton voters said white Americans who wanted to reduce immigration to preserve their group’s share of the population were racist, compared to 11% of white Trump voters. So, a majority of white Americans clearly don’t think what I’ve labelled progressive anti-racism is true, but a majority of Clinton supporters do, and a small minority of Trump supporters agree. This, I would suggest, is the essential intellectual divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives define racism broadly, as the expression of any preference to live among one’s own ethnic group and to thereby ensure continuity of a community’s culture and institutions (or even the maintenance of the ‘privilege’ cultural Marxists claim ethnic majorities always enjoy) while conservatives define it more narrowly. Although, it has to be said, this is not quite the true statement of the progressive view. The same survey, by the University of Birkbeck, highlighted that only 18% of white Clinton voters thought that a Latino or Asian American who wants to boost, via immigration, their own ethnic group’s share of the population is being racist. In other words, ethnic self-interest, as defined above, is not actually objected to per se by most progressives. Specifically then, progressive anti-racism differs from conservative anti-racism because it adheres to the claim that any attempt by certain majority ethnic groups to maintain their majority status, via immigration policy (or any other sort of policy) is racist. However, if and when the ethnic majority has become a minority the progressive will likely shift to claiming that the dominant ethnic group, dominant that is in virtue of economic or cultural strength, as opposed to raw demographic weight, still has no right to an ethnically self-interested immigration policy, while all the ethnic groups still defined as oppressed or disadvantaged do. In short progressive anti-racism ultimately bottoms out on the neo-marxist view that western nations are racist patriarchies, inherently oppressive, an analysis leavened no doubt by theories of intersectionality and all the rest of it.
  4. I don't know, I remember his appearance on the BBC with great fondness.
  5. They have to take an American back I think. Piers is English. I think we should offer them Boris.
  6. So how does this facetious example work exactly? Apologies for trying to prolong the misery here, but I'm just really curious about this. I feel if Tywin doesn't get to try to explain it would be like missing the final scene of a quite enjoyable disaster movie (one where all the characters die).
  7. My question actually pertained to the fact that arguments against abortion are usually religious and ethical. For example, I would like to know how you would categorise the below: by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church Pope John Paul II Secondly, surely your first amendment doesn't say you can't have religious reasons for proposing a law. Rather it states that the government may not set up a state religion or prohibit the exercise of any religion. Interpreted more broadly it may mean nothing can be done with government funds or power that has no non-religious purpose. However, preventing abortions can always be construed as having a non-religious purpose so this does not really help. I also find your continuing juxtaposition of religious rationales for abortion with medical justifications highly strange. Are these two types of reasoning an exhaustive way of categorising arguments on this subject in your view? Does it not make more sense to speak of religious vs secular justifications? I am bamboozled as to the meaning of your last two sentences. Could you explain them to me.
  8. How are you distinguishing between a religious and an ethical view?
  9. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

    Well according to this article he didn't refuse to have any business with them. He refused to bake a cake for their wedding but offered to provide them with other baked goods if they so desired. There was a very similar case in the UK. The supreme court, very wrongly in my view, found against a Christian couple who refused to make a cake with icing on it saying 'Support Gay Marriage.' People shouldn't suffer legal menaces if they don't wish to publish messages they don't agree with. How would a gay baker feel if they had to do some icing saying gay sex is sinful? This goes beyond restricting speech, it is actually forcing someone to put forward a view they don't hold. However, in the case in the US it is not really clear whether this cake was going to look different to other similar confectionery so it is arguably not the same situation.
  10. Chaircat Meow

    UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

    Apparently UK students will indeed still be eligible for the Erasmus programme post-Brexit. THE - Erasmus+ exchange programme set to open to all countries in 2021
  11. Chaircat Meow

    U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

    It certainly looks to me like Trump has a degree of political insight that raises him above mere moronhood, despite being poorly educated and suffering from a lack of impulse control. He and his campaign team understood that neither party was speaking to voters who moderately agreed with socially conservative positions but wanted a bigger state and protection against globalisation, and the progressive-liberal worldview that promotes it. Capturing these votes by attacking free trade and mass immigration allowed him to upend the electoral map and win despite defying the conventional wisdom of ‘his party.’ The Republican party were defeatist, thinking they were on the wrong side of history and believed they had to soften their opposition to the demographic and ideological changes overtaking America (in so far as they were really opposed to these anyway) to cultivate the rising hispanic and young progressive vote. Small government would be the raison d’etre of the party, salted with a bit of Christian conservatism. This is not likely to work in the age of globalisation and we see this in Europe as well as America. Generally if you change strategy in the face of more experienced opinion and your plan works, it seems peculiar you don’t get some credit for nous. Trump was also peppering himself with holes during the campaign so if he had been a bit more disciplined he’d likely have done even better and won the popular vote too. As for luck, of course he was very lucky. No one can become the leader of a country of 320 million + in the face of massive competition for the job and a very gruelling campaign process without lots of luck. A real genius would need lots of luck to win, even if a moron might need more. So to insist he was lucky is to say nothing interesting.
  12. Chaircat Meow

    UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

    I say f*ck latin. The language has my full respect but referendum is an English word now, and it should be pluralised in an English way.
  13. Chaircat Meow

    Why didn’t Robb just focus on Tywin?

    I'm afraid he means he might revise or change anything not already published in one of the books, not that people should go rummaging through his descriptions of clothes/armour/discipline trying to prove him wrong when he's gone on record to clarify something.
  14. Chaircat Meow

    Why didn’t Robb just focus on Tywin?

    The author is more or less on record saying you're wrong, so ... You may think you understand his book better than he does but I don't.
  15. Chaircat Meow

    Why didn’t Robb just focus on Tywin?

    It is a mistake to try to hunt too hard for consistency in GrrM's description of military affairs.
×