Steaming Ass

1235»

Comments

  • You're not following me - the issue isn't how he describes it, it's how he applies it.

    Think of it as Occam's Razor for morality - we can agree that a person holds a moral position only when their actions can't be explained by assuming they hold simpler, lower-effort moral positions. E.g. a guy who fights censorship of his own views might oppose all censorship generally, but that's not the parsimonious assumption (unless he also fights for views he disagrees with).

    Applying this to your link, your guy defines the notion of citizenism, but the only arguments he makes are against immigration. And I'm no expert but I think he harbored sentiments in that direction already, yeah?

    By contrast suppose that, say, he wrote a big article opposing ICE traffic stops, on the grounds that no citizen should have to put up with such a thing, even if it means catching fewer illegal immigrants. That would be the sort of thing I'm asking about.

  • By the way, this applies to you too. Back in the old forum I recall once saying something to the effect that an immigrant who just got naturalized twenty minutes ago is no less a citizen than you are, and your concerns don't trump his, and I don't remember your response but it was clear you didn't exactly agree wholeheartedly.

    You may think your tribe is citizens, but if you only act tribal about citizens who are white then I got news for ya.

  • Anyone ever read the Aubrey/maturing books? Good stuff, here's a quote

    "But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."
  • edited June 4

    "In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first."

    (Bierce)

  • @fenomas said:
    By the way, this applies to you too. Back in the old forum I recall once saying something to the effect that an immigrant who just got naturalized twenty minutes ago is no less a citizen than you are, and your concerns don't trump his, and I don't remember your response but it was clear you didn't exactly agree wholeheartedly.

    You may think your tribe is citizens, but if you only act tribal about citizens who are white then I got news for ya.

    I believe you are misremembering, unless I was making a technical point, such as the fact that naturalized citizens can have their citizenship stripped under certain circumstances.

  • @fenomas said:
    You're not following me - the issue isn't how he describes it, it's how he applies it.

    Think of it as Occam's Razor for morality - we can agree that a person holds a moral position only when their actions can't be explained by assuming they hold simpler, lower-effort moral positions. E.g. a guy who fights censorship of his own views might oppose all censorship generally, but that's not the parsimonious assumption (unless he also fights for views he disagrees with).

    Applying this to your link, your guy defines the notion of citizenism, but the only arguments he makes are against immigration. And I'm no expert but I think he harbored sentiments in that direction already, yeah?

    By contrast suppose that, say, he wrote a big article opposing ICE traffic stops, on the grounds that no citizen should have to put up with such a thing, even if it means catching fewer illegal immigrants. That would be the sort of thing I'm asking about.

    He's talking about citizenism in the context of immigration because immigration is his big issue, the existential problem we are facing. You may disagree that it is an existential problem, but Sailer's supporters believe you are wrong, and those are the people he is addressing. Sailer is proposing citizenism as a rational framework for setting public policy about immigration. In other words, we should oppose mass immigration on the grounds that such immigration hurts the current citizens of the United States.

    Note well that some persons have opposed immigration restrictions on the grounds that immigration really helps the immigrants. Both observations are true and can be backed up by hard data. Which one you prioritize is up to you and ultimately is a preference that isn't based on pure reason.

    If you think the alternative to citizenism is a happy multicultural society where everyone gets along and prospers together, I believe you are wrong. Historically, no such entity has ever existed. I believe that things are going to get ugly as whites get closer and closer to becoming a minority in the United States. Observe that our armed forces are mostly recruited from the working classes that have been bearing the brunt of the current anti-white sentiments among the elite. The alternatives are not between citizenism and kumbaya; they are between citizenism and white nationalism.

    Anyway, I doubt if I'll live to see the resolution of this. My brother didn't make it to sixty. Most of the people reading this, however, will live to see it.

  • @fenomas said:
    "In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first."

    (Bierce)

    That's more of a observation upon scoundrels that it is upon patriotism. Empires wherein government is forced upon the governed can survive without patriotism; republics that are governed with the consent of the governed cannot.

  • @Bill said:
    You may disagree that [immigration] is an existential problem, but Sailer's supporters believe...
    If you think the alternative to citizenism is a happy multicultural society where everyone gets along...

    You are utterly bonkers. My post contained no opinions about immigration or about "citizenism".

    You claimed Sailer's tribe is citizens, and I made an argument that his articles show otherwise, and asked for counterexamples. You suggested the citizenism article might be one, and I explained why it's not (in short: because it's more parsimonious to assume he's espousing citizenism because he opposes immigration, than to assume the reverse). That brings us up to date.

    On a side note, I don't think I've ever told you anything about my positions on immigration. It's never really come up.

Sign In or Register to comment.