Countering Liberal Elitist Social Theories (and Nebulous Hypotheticals)

DarthOne

☦️
It's not BS, the incident happened as they describe. The point you should have disputed is the logic that disparate impact is a valid legal theory in the first case, not the specifics of one particular incident.
(grumbles) Now he tells me days after the fact....
 

King Arts

Well-known member
From a Youtube Comment:



My reaction was to call bullshit and demand a source for the incident mentioned.
That quote is dumb. Just because a law has disparate effects on one group of people does not mean the law is racist. Maybe reality is racist. People need to accept that All men are NOT created equal. Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
That quote is dumb. Just because a law has disparate effects on one group of people does not mean the law is racist. Maybe reality is racist. People need to accept that All men are NOT created equal. Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different
That's not what disparate impact dismisses, and the thing is, when they're looking at things like disparate impact they're looking a thousands, if not millions of people. At those levels, while they're all individuals, things tend to even out into actual statistical groupings.

The problem with disparate impact as a theory isn't that it's looking at groups, it's that it's beginning with the conclusion. If there is X difference between Y and Z groups, it is assumed to be racism/sexism/etc., and not any number of other differences between the two populations (because no two populations are statistically identical). This is especially common when it comes to crime and poverty, where the massive single parenthood rate of blacks in the US is studiously ignored by those pushing disparate impact, despite studies showing that single parenthood is one of the absolutely worst things for children and basically all but guarantees intergenerational poverty as well as significant increases in criminality (how big of an impact? Based on the studies I've seen being from a stable, two parent home is a bigger indicator of success than race, gender, or even parent's socio-economic group... seriously, it is the single largest impactor).

There's good reason for the left to ignore this fact though, because... well... if the bad circumstances for blacks have been majorly caused by the destruction of the family within their communities, you have to look at what caused the decline of the black family. And when you start looking at that, you end up looking into the Great Society and the perverse incentives created by the expanded welfare system. In short, the bad guy in the story isn't the Republicans and Conservatives, but the Progressive Left. Rather, the Republicans and Conservatives, who said that welfare would destroy families and create intergenerational poverty, would end up being the prophets who tried to warn people...

Long story short, the reason they have to push disparate impact so hard is because without it, they have to look for other root causes, and those root causes don't make them look good. Which is the attack angle you should take when disproving disparate impact, you first point out that it is logically fallacious, in that it starts from it's conclusion, and then you point out there's much better explanations for these issues than the canard of "xism".
 

King Arts

Well-known member
That's not what disparate impact dismisses, and the thing is, when they're looking at things like disparate impact they're looking a thousands, if not millions of people. At those levels, while they're all individuals, things tend to even out into actual statistical groupings.

The problem with disparate impact as a theory isn't that it's looking at groups, it's that it's beginning with the conclusion. If there is X difference between Y and Z groups, it is assumed to be racism/sexism/etc., and not any number of other differences between the two populations (because no two populations are statistically identical). This is especially common when it comes to crime and poverty, where the massive single parenthood rate of blacks in the US is studiously ignored by those pushing disparate impact, despite studies showing that single parenthood is one of the absolutely worst things for children and basically all but guarantees intergenerational poverty as well as significant increases in criminality (how big of an impact? Based on the studies I've seen being from a stable, two parent home is a bigger indicator of success than race, gender, or even parent's socio-economic group... seriously, it is the single largest impactor).

There's good reason for the left to ignore this fact though, because... well... if the bad circumstances for blacks have been majorly caused by the destruction of the family within their communities, you have to look at what caused the decline of the black family. And when you start looking at that, you end up looking into the Great Society and the perverse incentives created by the expanded welfare system. In short, the bad guy in the story isn't the Republicans and Conservatives, but the Progressive Left. Rather, the Republicans and Conservatives, who said that welfare would destroy families and create intergenerational poverty, would end up being the prophets who tried to warn people...

Long story short, the reason they have to push disparate impact so hard is because without it, they have to look for other root causes, and those root causes don't make them look good. Which is the attack angle you should take when disproving disparate impact, you first point out that it is logically fallacious, in that it starts from it's conclusion, and then you point out there's much better explanations for these issues than the canard of "xism".
While I agree with you that, the reason blacks are doing so shitty, is probably because of one parent households. By interacting with liberals and debating disparate impact, you are giving it legitimacy as a valid theory. Instead if any legal scholar who brought it forth was simply mocked and we responded with some people are just inferior thats why laws that apply to everyone hit them more often. Then we fired and black listed that scholar we would have never been in the position we are now.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
While I agree with you that, the reason blacks are doing so shitty, is probably because of one parent households. By interacting with liberals and debating disparate impact, you are giving it legitimacy as a valid theory. Instead if any legal scholar who brought it forth was simply mocked and we responded with some people are just inferior thats why laws that apply to everyone hit them more often. Then we fired and black listed that scholar we would have never been in the position we are now.
Congratulations, that might have worked... fifty years ago when the disparate impact tests were first introduced into the law. At this point, you can't mock them away, disparate impact is not just an academic theory, but a part of US Case Law especially in regards to civil rights law. In order to get rid of it, you need to be able to make actual arguments against it.

Mocking dismissal only works when you have institutional power, when you don't, you automatically lose the argument.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Congratulations, that might have worked... fifty years ago when the disparate impact tests were first introduced into the law. At this point, you can't mock them away, disparate impact is not just an academic theory, but a part of US Case Law especially in regards to civil rights law. In order to get rid of it, you need to be able to make actual arguments against it.

Mocking dismissal only works when you have institutional power, when you don't, you automatically lose the argument.
Well no we can do similar things as the left has done. If another Trump gets into power he can start putting in judges that publicly profess the correct beliefs, and do all he can to sack the judges that hold that position. Then you can just ignore the old case law and the judges can make new case law. Precedent in the law is one of the weaknesses conservatives have that the left keeps abusing.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Well no we can do similar things as the left has done. If another Trump gets into power he can start putting in judges that publicly profess the correct beliefs, and do all he can to sack the judges that hold that position. Then you can just ignore the old case law and the judges can make new case law. Precedent in the law is one of the weaknesses conservatives have that the left keeps abusing.
Lol, Trump appointed plenty of judges. The thing is, the pool of potential judges is basically a pile of people who are mostly, even singularly, focused on the law rather than the politics. Whilst any given judge is undoubtedly effected by their own bias and background, pretty much none of the options think of themselves as a Republican or Democrat judge. They think of themselves as judges, who might happen to prefer a party, and for the overwhelming majority they try to implement law as they believe it's intended and can still accept and understand good faith disagreement of interpretation. Like all things, it's become increasingly infected by the false dichotomy, but the standards of education and experience have at least diminished that somewhat.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Until and unless the Kilkenny kats on the right generate an elite, who can resist being coopted by the existing structures of liberalism (which is the big problem) they will continue being powerless. Which is probably why rightists spend more time and effort fighting each other than anything else; activism without an inside the system elite to take advantage is pointless.

Nice shout-out, good to have our lowest expectations of you confirmed yet again. But this again shows your incoherence and lack of thought. You want simultaneously to be unsullied by political participation in the system (to the extent you infamously claimed voting was a sin unless it reflected your racial obsessions, because they're really the most important part of your belief system) and to be in a position to take over the system. You can't simultaneously be in your self-sufficient WN compound in the woods and inside the Beltway.

Which is why you cope by endlessly devolving into fantasies of a violent revolution and the collapse of civilisation, which won't happen until ... going by Spengler's actual theory, about 2,700. Assuming of course that he was 100% correct about everything, which is doubtful at the least.

100% true, but even the dissident right is fundamentally powerless in this way and the dissident right has always had the numbers to be a significant political force (especially if the just so stories of democratic popular sovereignty and civic parliamentary representation actually mattered).

No you don't. The Constitution Party, the closest to the mainstream and nowhere near the toxic insanity of your particular politics, has only ... twenty-six municipal-level seats. This is not hard to understand why; all mainstream right-wing positions are already contained within the GOP, and outside the mainstream ... well, let's just say the cultural memory of what happened the last time eugenics-fixated, race-obsessed socialists with a mystical tinge, an obsession with violent warfare and fantasies about "vitalist barbarism" took power in a Western nation is still strong.

If the dissidents could just stop forming circular firing squads for five minutes and lift a Caudillo upon their shields and swear to honor and obey him and no other save God, things might be different.

I mean, the "dissidents" are in the numbers maybe ... to swing a municipal-level election if they all got together. Because really, nobody wants what they're selling. "If you build it, they will come" ... or if they've any common sense they'll run as fast as they can in the opposite directions.

This can last for generations (typically around five) before a new vitalist barbarism can smash and overthrow the rot and begin anew.

The Roman Empire lasted about 5 to 15 centuries after Augustus took power - 6 to 16 if we count the period immediately after the Punic Wars. So yet again you expose your utter lack of knowledge about whatever it is you think you're talking about. And that was with far more difficult means of communication and movement than exist today. And "vitalist barbarians"? Conan was a fictional character, and R. E. Howard wasn't actually a social scientist. "Vitalist barbarians" today get effortlessly drone-striked. Even with the recent affair in Afghanistan, the Taliban will never be sacking Washington D.C.

The history of the world is a history of "vitalist barbarians" being endlessly, relentlessly pushed into the areas of the planet nobody else wanted (jmountains, jungles and deserts) or assimilating into "civilisation" themselves. If "civilisation" was inferior and doomed as you've endlessly repeated, this wouldn't be the case. And the modern world has far from levelled the playing field - it's tilted it even more obscenely against the barbarians. A random blacksmith can't make the sort of military equipment barbarians need to win against civilised powers as he could when war was a matter of swords and breastplates, and industrial economies don't work on easily-acquirable slave labour taken from conquests and raids, as the Nazis and Soviets discovered. Yes, the Pashtuns and the Chechnyans can hold on to their mountains ... but their mountains are all they're ever going to have these days.

Even in Chechnya, where they had pretty much everything rigged in their favour, a broken wreck of a former superpower with an economy the size of Italy and more roubles stashed outside the country than circulating in it ... easily subdued the barbarians coming out of the mountains. Imagine what would happen to them if they were actually perceived by the Russian govt. as posing a threat to its survival.

No. Or at least, not these alone. These are insufficient. You need a passion for the struggle. You need a raison for the young man to seemly lie, mangled by the bronze spear. Something sacred to defend. Such that a man is ashamed to flee rather than stand and die, with his boots on. Ideals and theories of the soul of the public things can come later, after victory is achieved and we have planted peaceful gardens for our children.

You get this from Marx, don't you? "We don't need to ask about what the post-Revolutionary utopia will look like until the Revolution is won!". But fortunately we already know what your ideals look like.

You want to create out of the USA, or the Western World in general, a totalitarian socialist ethnostate which is centred ideologically around Catholicism-tinged worship of the Leader (you) and a belief in the superiority of the (loosely-defined) "Germanic-Aryan" peoples, with the additions of belief in mystic collective racial souls and Nietzscheanism.

The vast majority of mankind are too ignorant of the technical vocabulary to have a valid opinion.

Yes, yes, we're all stupider than you and should bow to the opinion of somebody who thinks his ooga-booga GLORIOUS GERMANICS conquered Alexandria during the fall of the Roman Empire and literally thinks we will soon be too stupid to maintain or build nuclear weapons as we slide into dysgenic apocalypse (wonder what you've planned to solve that problem once you inevitably take power? We know what the last bunch of people to be obsessively concerned with that did. Another reason why you'll never be let into power).

And this is why we fail. Yes, there's going to be conflict on the other side. Accept that. Embrace it. But if you purity spiral here and now you will not build a coalition capable of winning. This is actually really simple. When in a war, your actions should either expand or empower your own coalition or reduce or weaken his coalition. Ideally, both at the same time. The end.

And any coalition capable of gaining power and holding on to it won't include people like you, because frankly ... you're on the fringe even of the "dissident right".

Do you really think the professional black block like and respect the rainbow block? The only thing keeping any of the Sinister factions from coming to blows and exploding the entire coalition is the acknowledged supremacy of the elite financeers and the shared hatred of us.

Look, we know what you mean by "elite financiers", "occultist elites", "plutocrats" et al now, since you admitted it in the other thread. You believe that all of history since the end of the Middle Ages has been determined by a Jewish conspiracy designed to destroy the "Germanic race". There really isn't any reasoning with such nonsense.

And it's hilarious to see you complaining about purity spiralling, given your definition for "right-wing" is "extreme ethnonat and follows my weird personal religion consisting of Indo-European pagan/Catholic syncretism".

Bioleninism. The hatred and jealousy of the mutant and inferior for the healthy and superior.

Ah, I remember when you said you were just about "natural in-group preference". Well, I guess that explains why one of your first posts here was bitching that you couldn't say the N-word, which you then later followed up on by saying that such purely social limitations were so unendurably terrible that it justified you rising up to try and make yourself king. But what are you really doing with this but summarising Nietzsche? This is just a paraphrase of him bitching about his "slave revolt in morals". And we know what he blamed for it:

It was the Jews who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = favored-of-the-gods [gottgeliebt] and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that "only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!" ... We know who has fallen heir to this Jewish inversion of values.... In reference to the grand and unspeakably disastrous initiative which the Jews have launched by this most radical of all declarations of war, I wish to repeat a statement I made in a different context (Beyond Good and Evil), to wit, that it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals [daß nämlich mit den Juden der Sklaven-aufstand in der Moral beginnt]; a revolt with two millennia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so competely. [

...

Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel of love made flesh, the "redeemer," who brought blessing and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinner -- what was he but temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, bringing men by a roundabout way to precisely those Jewish values and renovations of the ideal? Has not Israel, precisely by the detour of this "redeemer," this seeming antagonist and destroyer of Israel, reached the final goal of its sublime vindictiveness [seiner sublimen Rachsucht]? Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a farsighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that "the whole world" (meaning all the enemies of Israel) might naïvely swallow the bait? And could one, by straining every resource, hit upon a bait more dangerous than this? What could equal in debilitating narcotic power the symbol of the "holy cross," the ghastly paradox of a crucified god, the unspeakably cruel mystery of God's self-crucifixion for the benefit of mankind?

We know you share at least one of his, shall we say, "strong dislikes" now, and if you were consistent you'd share the other.
 
Last edited:

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
You know...somehow I'd forgotten that claim about Jesus being an evil Jewish plot.

I find it laughable simply with the evidence of the Empty Tomb.

SO many embrace the idea of tearing down amything that may challenge the choices they've made in life. "Jesus MUST be evil so that I can see myself as good!"

Pretty sure that's the case with all good men and women used as character examples. I mean, look at how the left constantly portrays our founders.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
You know...somehow I'd forgotten that claim about Jesus being an evil Jewish plot.

Nietzsche was deeply disgusted by the shift from the aristocratic "master morality" of the pre-Christian world in which the powerful could do solely as they pleased and life was percieved as a constant struggle to dominate or be dominated.

As an atheist, he fundamentally rejected Christianity's "slave morality" - with its ideas about the higher condescending to aid the lower, violence being justified only within strict limitations, a concept that even the lowest on the totem pole had a degree of inherent value, that worldly success wasn't the total end-all, and that altruism wasn't solely a thing for one's clan-members. It took only a little branching out from there to connect it to the Jews.

He really did perceive a historical shift that was really there - his mindset just inverted it.

Ironically, Nietzsche himself would go mad and died an invalid, dependent on the charity of others.
 
Last edited:
As an atheist, he fundamentally rejected Christianity's "slave morality" - with its ideas about the higher condescending to aid the lower, violence being justified only within strict limitations, a concept that even the lowest on the totem pole had a degree of inherent value, that worldly success wasn't the total end-all, and that altruism wasn't solely a thing for one's clan-members. It took only a little branching out from there to connect it to the Jews.


to a degree I can see the resistance. How many charities exist out there not to actually better people, but to pat themselves on the back and feel good about what they were doing. As I've gotten older I'm starting to believe that "raising others before yourself." wasin't a call to self-dabasment, but to literally raise each other up. People don't want to be treated with pity, they want to become an equal.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
@KilroywasNOTHere
I think youre almost right.

People just want to be treated equally whereas you stated they want to become an equal.

I think the key piece of all that is accepting not just people's strengths, but their flaws and weaknesses too.
 
People just want to be treated equally whereas you stated they want to become an equal.

I'm not sure I agree only because people can tell when your "being nice" and when you are actually trying to improve there situation. Why do you think there are people out there who would rather take odd jobs then beg. They don't just want to be another "charity case" call it pride if you will but for all of it's faults it can and has caused people to strive and be better. I think when crap hits the fan most people don't want to be pets even when the master tries to act on their level. Heck even in the race for eternal life there is a hope of being joint heirs in paradise and the desire to be exalted (literally meaning Elevated in rank, character, or status.) by God.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
I'm not disagreeing with you so much as saying that we ARE equal to begin with.

We just have to NOT be assholes and treat each other that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Simonbob

Well-known member
Equality under the Law is different from being "Equal".

We're not all equal. There are smarter people, stronger people, and healthier people.


This is, in many ways, the biggest problem we have, with the modern Left. They want "Equal", and are willing to cripple the strong to get it.


There is no equality, nor do we want it.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Equality under the Law is different from being "Equal".

We're not all equal. There are smarter people, stronger people, and healthier people.


This is, in many ways, the biggest problem we have, with the modern Left. They want "Equal", and are willing to cripple the strong to get it.


There is no equality, nor do we want it.

The world is full of mass graves in the name of equality.
 
Equality under the Law is different from being "Equal".

We're not all equal. There are smarter people, stronger people, and healthier people.


This is, in many ways, the biggest problem we have, with the modern Left. They want "Equal", and are willing to cripple the strong to get it.


There is no equality, nor do we want it.

not sure I agree with that. I think it's not so much they want equality so much as they want to be the kings and the high priests giving their crumbs to us lowly people so that they can pretend they are charitable and better people then what they are. it's virtue signaling in a nutshell.

We've seen what happens when minorities are called to action and given equal expectations. Those who sound the call get called racist and white supremacist. Any attempt to actual innovate the energy sector that isn't solar or wind energy (nuclear, geothermal ect.) gets shot down and those who suggest it being called stupid at best dangerous at worst. Education continues to get dumbed down while the elite gets all of the best tutors, Physical property rights are dwindling while The "muh copyright of ideas" is getting consolidated to where we are all for all intents and purposes being ruled by a political triad. (Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Washington DC, all ran by the same type of people if not the same people)

no these people don't want equality they want the return of the southern antebellum period but on a national scale, with them as the rich plantation owners and the rest of us as the chattel.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Equality under the Law is different from being "Equal".

We're not all equal. There are smarter people, stronger people, and healthier people.


This is, in many ways, the biggest problem we have, with the modern Left. They want "Equal", and are willing to cripple the strong to get it.


There is no equality, nor do we want it.

I agree.We are equal meen that we all are God childrens,not that we are all capable of being scientists or athletes.
 

PeaceMaker 03

Well-known member
“ lolbertarian” so that is the term used to divide the libertarian movement so they are ineffective?

Never heard the word until a second ago, but I find first page links to lolbertarian memes pages?

Multiple pages of them, on page 1 of Google search, ABC must deam anti-libertarian pages a priority.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top