jmorphy88

Well, they're not the same thing, because nobody is claiming 20% women and minimal diversity is a moral imperative. There aren't executive-level staff in major corporations who are paid handsomely to ensure a 20% female staff. If you're arguing there is some kind of secret covenant amongst the shadowy bro-network for a fixed 20% women quota and minimal diversity, you'd need to provide some proof of that. Aside from that you haven't really addressed the questions I asked.

I've noticed a real inability (or perhaps disinclination) to speak about these issues in a straightforward way.

1) why is it a moral imperative to have 50/50 gender balance in a company?

2) why is it wrong to have a non-diverse company?

The fact that we don't know means that we must depict Celts as black, just in case. After all, it's a possibility.

Taleb is correct to call out this cartoon as the politically correct nonsense that it is. A saner society might agree with him and ask itself why, in the current day, history needs to be rewritten to be completely fictitious.

Taleb's persona, however, does not lend itself well to open debate over such issues, as he champions himself as being a lone iconoclast against the "IYIs". All we can do is enjoy the show, I guess.

in what way is Camp of the Saints an endorsement of genocide?

Is speaking to the Russian ambassador somehow illegal? It seems that the accusations here are whether Sessions had contacts with Russia during his time as a Trump campaign surrogate. He did not. So it's not clear to me what the controversy is here.

Sessions had contact with the Russian ambassador as a member of the Armed Services Committee, not as a campaign surrogate. This is a non-issue.

Correct. America is not a giant shopping mall for the world, it's a country. "Love it or leave it" is an entirely appropriate and necessary statement.

So what? America's history is overwhelmingly white and Christian. The vast majority of immigration to the US has been from white, Christian nations, even more so at the time when the Statue of Liberty was erected. Is the US a nation of Yemeni immigrants? It's silly to simply treat all potential immigrants as if they are the same. Also, it's disingenuous to reference the Statue of Liberty as some kind of justification for unlimited immigration from all nations of the world. The USA is not a dumping ground for the world's poor.

> The word for expelling large numbers of people who were born in the country but not of the dominant ethnicity is "ethnic cleansing".

In London, if population trends are any indication, this sentence applies just as well to English people...

Lol. Care to comment on the many bannings/suspensions of prominent right-wing commentators/journalists on Twitter (Milo, Ricky Vaughn, Chuck Johnson, James O'Keefe, to name a few), the practice of "shadowbanning", as well of Facebook's well-documented history of deleting/censoring of posts about refugee crime in Europe and outright censorship of anti-refugee comments in Germany (under the guise of calling it "hate speech" of course...)?

Articles like these are primarily about signaling that one is an enlightened urbanite rather than an uncultured suburban troglodyte. In other words, simple cultural warfare. Even the title gives it away... lawns are "soul-crushing"? Only to pompous urban J-school graduates whose entire parasitic existence depends on the productive classes of society.

Well, the very idea of group interests MEANS that group will treat some people better than others. So, are white people allowed to do that, or not?

Fair enough, not trying to put words in your mouth, but here's the thing: the "white privilege" narrative that you rely on here IS actually a way of declaring a group of people as being morally unworthy. Granted you didn't use the word "evil" but if a group is permanently tarred with the accusation that their group interests are not legitimate and never will be, it's not a stretch to suggest that this group is being accused of a kind of eternal "Original Sin" from which they can never be cleansed.

And anyway, it's clear from your explanation that if these people were not white, you might have some sympathy for them. How else are we to interpret statements like: "they cannot point to any injustices visited upon them as an excuse for their current state of affairs" and that "these people have nothing to offer to anyone" a few lines after you elucidate how the US Govt did nothing to protect American manufacturing jobs? What exactly do foreign manual laborers "have to offer" that white Americans don't, aside from being cheaper?

Sure you did. Your third and fourth paragraphs essentially say, "These people, by virtue of being white Americans, do not deserve help from our country's institutions, because they are evil. Everyone else on earth is more deserving of help, and therefore, our country should give money to foreigners instead of its own people."

And people wonder where working-class rage comes from...

> But maybe we shouldn't feel sorry for these people, who grew up in the richest country in the world blah blah blah ...

So, whites deserve nothing from the institutions of their own country, except the "privilege" to be permanently tainted by a kind of Original Sin, and neglected in favor of literally every other ethnic group? Got it.

Obvious non-issue and fake media controversy, will not take seriously. Thx.

> open antisemitism

[citation needed]

In regards to historical progressivist movements, I agree with you. I was referring only to the current progressive dispensation. Perhaps I'm not using the correct term for it... whatever you want to call the dominant American university ideology of today.

I do think it's appropriate to think of this ideology primarily in racial terms. Virtually any issue supported by the left today is, in its essence, about stripping white people of power, identity, and autonomy, and giving that power to other groups.

Diversity, equality, multiculturalism, globalism, "one-world"-ism, pro-mass-immigration, all of these terms mean "not white". It's perfectly easy to see that, because all "white" cultures are treated differently in this paradigm, as "oppressor", "colonialist" nations/peoples, "majority/minority", "privileged", etc. These terms don't apply to other groups.

The amorphousness and formlessness of this ideology and its lack of coherent theoretical basis (as opposed to something more rigidly principled like Marxism, libertarianism, etc) is what provides cover for its true aim, which is political power for its adherents.

Bingo. Progressive leftist ideology, in its essence, is anti-white racism. All of its purported ideals are really about stripping whites of any power or identity and giving it to others.

No, but plg did refer to the locals as "caucasians" before calling them hostile and unwelcoming.

> I suppose I don't consider the ex-citizens of one of the European royally rules countries to be the same, but there's surely some unifying traits like Christianity.

I don't either, but you did say "Caucasian-looking"...

A mass migration from any foreign culture (that is, highly different from the host culture) would be treated with alarm by the locals anywhere, in any country. It's not a phenomenon specific to the US. The US just happens to provide a particular historical instance of it. Vancouver seems to be providing us another.

So, another version of "it's all white people's fault", then?

> I don't understand how the caucasian-looking US population can claim to be the real Americans, ignoring that the US has been one of the richest mix of immigrants.

You can't be serious. American history did not start in 1980. The vast majority of the US population throughout its history has been European-descended.

Isn't there a lot more more to being a citizen of a country than paying one's taxes? Nothing about integrating into a community? A country is not an economy.

Let's put it this way... if I were a (white) billionaire, and a few hundred of my richest friends and I moved to China and started buying up real estate in a major city and flaunting our wealth all over the place, how do you think the locals would receive us?

Sam Hyde pulled off a brilliant troll of TEDx a few years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJn_DBTnrY

> Your personal wealth doesn't give you the right to see and interact only with people who are within your same circles of success.

Uh, it doesn't? Why not? That's certainly not how wealth stratification manifests itself IRL... especially in the SF area.

It means a non-"progressive" White male who works in technology.

I really miss Wakemate. Despite the wristbands being not terribly well-made (I went through three of them), it's the only system that did exactly what I needed it to do, which is to wake me up within a 20-minute window at a point where bodily movement is higher than usual. Worked like a charm for me. There are apps that do this but they require you to sleep with your phone next to you on the bed, and I can't imagine that they work as well as a wristband...

> And if that's how the world works, then why the criticism of "whitey" being shaken down?

I'm not criticizing it per se. I'm trying to describe Diversity Inc. as a much simpler phenomenon than it's being made out to be. It's a battle between two groups with a conflict of interests, and one of those groups isn't even taking its own side in the fight. It sounds simplistic, but without an understanding of the basic political dynamics at work, there's not much use bickering over the details.

As for who is the "best" candidate for a given role, I didn't comment on that, but human interactions and group dynamics are highly complex phenomena. The problem as you described it may turn out to be unsolvable. This raises the question of who exactly benefits from these futile attempts to solve it. See above.