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.

  • edited June 25

    Huh.

    But then again, I still remember a part in "Little House on the Prairie" about how Laura wanted her dad to go and grab her a papoose right off the back of an Indian woman because it was the cutest thing she had ever seen. This was on top of her begging her dad to let her know when she would see a little brown papoose since early in the book. The descriptions of the yelling and singing were kind of haunting too. Plus the feelings the family had when they found that Pa taking a chance on the land he built on being taken from Indians and opened to Settlers didn't pan out.

    That bothered me when I read it in 1988, and stuck with me until now.

    I don't remember the 'dead indian' line, and didn't know about Ingalls changing lines in the book to make it seem less racist even back in the 1950s. :-)

    In other words, I'm ambivalent about the change. I'd probably be upset if they had rescinded her winning the first award, but the award itself changing names doesn't really seem like a big deal I guess?

  • edited June 25

    Eh.... I'm also not OVERLY offended by the award name change... I'm a little unsettled by attempts to diminish someone's accomplishments because it doesn't fit our current standards of morality.

    It'd be no different than renaming the, "Mark Twain Prize for American Humor" because Twain made liberal use of the N-word in his books. I imagine that would get a lot of attention and controversy.

    Personally, I wouldn't support it. Being in keeping with the moral standards of their time should not diminish they're value and accomplishments.

  • @Rufus said:

    I'm a little unsettled by attempts to diminish someone's accomplishments because it doesn't fit our current standards of morality.

    This take doesn't make sense. They're not trying to delete her off wikipedia, they just voted to stop doing something in her honor, because they no longer feel like honoring her. That's fair enough, isn't it? Presumably they want their award to reflect whatever values they hold today, not be a historical reminder of what people thought was worthwhile N years ago.

    As for the other bit:

    It'd be no different than renaming the, "Mark Twain Prize...

    Ehhh, I think it's a little different. Or, moving up one meta-level, I think judging whether or not it's different is something the ALA is probably at least as qualified to do as we are.

  • @fenomas said:
    This take doesn't make sense. They're not trying to delete her off wikipedia, they just voted to stop doing something in her honor, because they no longer feel like honoring her. That's fair enough, isn't it?

    I can't really disagree... but they were pretty specific that the reason for doing so was racist elements in her writing. That would seem to be an active action to diminish their legacy. "She wrote things that are racist, when measured by today's standards; so she is no longer fit to honour with this award."

    It'd be no different than renaming the, "Mark Twain Prize...

    Ehhh, I think it's a little different. Or, moving up one meta-level, I think judging whether or not it's different is something the ALA is probably at least as qualified to do as we are.

    I agree, it's a level above... if for no other reason than it's a far more visible and known award... but I don't think 'scale' changes the analogy and it's applicability. It's a prize... named for a famous historical figure... known for accomplishment in the field for which the award is given. Unless there's some subtlety I'm not seeing (aware of); I don't see the difference.

  • edited June 27

    Although I do have to ask who the hell was reading "Little House on the Prairie" 'uncritically' in schools? I mean, no one ever explained that the rantings were period portrayals, or explained how Pa was somehow the least racist and most literate person in the entire effing book?

    (To be fair, I sought out the rest of the series after having to read "Little House in the Big Woods" at school, and we never had to read Little House on the Prairie or any of the others as part of a class. I sought out the rest myself, and never found 'On the Shores of Silver Lake' while I was in grade school).

    Before reading Huck Finn in school they had a long conversation about the words we would see and how they were reflections of the time and no longer valid. Of course, the Protagonist is pretty anti-racist despite the frequent use of the N word. He did help the slave escape, after all. Tom though... fuck Tom Sawyer. ;-)

  • Every time I type 'uncritical' I always want to fill the word with diacritical marks.

  • @Rufus said:
    I can't really disagree... but they were pretty specific that the reason for doing so was racist elements in her writing. That would seem to be an active action to diminish their legacy.

    You're not considering things from the librarian's perspective. To us this is just a blurb in the news, so the alternatives look like "diminish someone's legacy" vs "nothing". But to them it's a thing they get together and do every year or two - their vote was between "rename the award" and "keep getting together in honor of someone we all think isn't worth honoring".

    I mean, if you're claiming they're wrong to see racism in Wilder's writings, that's one thing. But you seem to be okay with that bit, but not with them renaming the award, and I don't follow that at all.

    It'd be no different than renaming the, "Mark Twain Prize...

    Ehhh, I think it's a little different. Or, moving up one meta-level, I think judging whether or not it's different is something the ALA is probably at least as qualified to do as we are.

    Unless there's some subtlety I'm not seeing (aware of); I don't see the difference.

    Wilder's award was renamed because she conveyed sentiment that is now considered racist, using words we still find acceptable. Your Twain example is strictly the opposite.

  • edited June 28

    @fenomas said:
    I mean, if you're claiming they're wrong to see racism in Wilder's writings, that's one thing.

    Well... I kinda was... But maybe that's where I'm wrong... I can't say it wasn't racist when she wrote it. It just wasn't seen as wrong, when she wrote it.

    But you seem to be okay with that bit, but not with them renaming the award, and I don't follow that at all.

    I think I had two points... It wasn't wrong to say, when she wrote it... And a few small (period appropriate) details in a book, that we now see as offensive, shouldn't invalidate her entire body of work. Perhaps some would say that renaming the award doesn't do that... but it certainly implies that her work is no longer worthy of honour.

    I'm the type to look at the intent of something, before condemning it.

    Your Twain example is strictly the opposite.

    Meh... it's been a long time since I last read Twain... I could have just as easily come up with a non-literary hypothetical (actually, that was what I started with, when writing the post). I was painting with a coarse brush.

  • @Rufus said:
    I'm the type to look at the intent of something, before condemning it.

    Sure, but the ALA didn't vote to condemn it, they voted to rename their award. How they feel about Wilder's legacy isn't in evidence - being librarians they probably have nuanced views on the matter, just as you and I do.

    The point being: there's a lot of ideological ground between "her works should be condemned based on how we feel now, regardless of how they were once viewed" and "let's engrave her name on a plaque each year and give it to a contemporary author, who hopefully won't be of American Indian heritage because that might be awkward". Just because the ALA moved out of the latter camp doesn't mean they're in the former.

  • @fenomas said:
    Just because the ALA moved out of the latter camp doesn't mean they're in the former.

    I will concede the point.

  • I should say that I haven't read any Wilder and don't remember any Twain, so everything I said was meant in a "if we assume what they say is true" sense. I have no idea if calling Wilder racist is broadly justified or if there are passages where she depicts Indians sympathetically, etc.

  • Keeping in mind it was set in the 1860s to 1880s... well, then it doesn't seem so bad.

    Pa was always depicted as understanding and tolerant compared to damn near everyone else. (Although he did move his family to take early advantage of possibly taking land from the Indians). He was also normally depicted as the most educated person in the room in most of the books... a trait I think that transferred to the TV show, no?

    Ma didn't trust anyone 'different'. She didn't want anyone different anywhere near her or her family. I think she was depicted as having her views motivated by fear, if memory serves.

    The kids... well, they really only explored Laura's feelings She was... naive? Embarassingly naive? But that part of one book still bothered the hell out of me. :-)

    Other adults... well I haven't read the books in a long time, but some of them were a bit out there.

  • This should make someone mad:

    Pa was a Democrat.
    Ma was a Republican.
    Laura was a person that voted for Jill Stein.

Sign In or Register to comment.