What's your opinion on these issues?

[Blazkovitz]

What’s your opinion on feminism, political correctness and migration?

FEMINISM

I admire early feminism for standing up and challenging centuries of male domination. But now that’s history, and almost everybody agrees with its gains. So I’ll focus on modern feminism. I like feminists who fight against prostitution, pornography and sexual harassment. They really defend civilized values against barbaric machismo. I sympathize with MeToo aims.

Then many feminists go to far. They don’t want men to appreciate sensuality of the female body. They don’t want to hear that obesity is a disease, or that casual sex is risky and destructive, because these truths might make some women ashamed. We see here a dogmatic form of Leftism, which denies that anybody might be better (healthier, more beautiful, more moral) than somebody else. Feminism needs to be purged of the disease.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

There are many manifestations of PC, so I don’t have the same attitude towards all. In general the state should not interfere with free speech too much. Especially scientific research must be completely free and open. Noone should impose dubious scientific concepts like the “gay gene”. And if one feels "triggered" by offensive humour, one should simply stop listening.

I am however genuinely shocked by extreme racism and sexism. I think it’s a good idea to censor extreme hate speech like Holocaust denial. Actual fascist propaganda is too dangerous to be allowed to reach the public.

I also think PC is an overstated problem, it’s very prominent on the American campus but elsewhere nationalist authoritarianism is a bigger threat. Evangelical preachers aren’t typically persecuted for saying that homosexuality is a sin.

MIGRATION

In general, I support open borders and global citizenship. But we cannot forget about the economy. No country should take in more migrants than it can accommodate. Educated people who are an asset for the labour market should be preferred over the uneducated with little prospect of employment. Also, non-Muslim migrants should be preferred over Muslims, and among Muslims the relatively secular over the devout. The state should also vigorously promote humanism and secularism in immigrant communities. In extreme cases, when immigrant parents brainwash their children with religious fanaticism, the children should be taken away and adopted by secular humanist families.

So I am in favour with temporarily restricting immigration for safety and pragmatic economic reasons, but not for ethnocentric reasons. The problem is that the Third World migrants are too ethnocentric, and not that Anglos are not ethnocentric enough.

[David Horn]

There is no 'good' that remains so in excess. The recommendation for, "all things in immoderation" always applies. I was a late-attender at college, so I was a "true adult" when I got into a debate with my Constitutional History Professor. The subject: PC. I told him that I found it counterproductive, since it's main impact was stifling free speech and encouraging lazy thinking. He assumed I am a conservative, and argued from the perspective … except I'm not. I told him that similar overbearing restrictions have been used forever, with the Nazis and Soviets being prime examples. That ended the debate. I still got an A in his class.

[Eric the Green]

(04-19-2020, 04:51 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: What’s your opinion on feminism, political correctness and migration?

FEMINISM

I admire early feminism for standing up and challenging centuries of male domination. But now that’s history, and almost everybody agrees with its gains. So I’ll focus on modern feminism. I like feminists who fight against prostitution, pornography and sexual harassment. They really defend civilized values against barbaric machismo. I sympathize with MeToo aims.

Then many feminists go to far. They don’t want men to appreciate sensuality of the female body. They don’t want to hear that obesity is a disease, or that casual sex is risky and destructive, because these truths might make some women ashamed. We see here a dogmatic form of Leftism, which denies that anybody might be better (healthier, more beautiful, more moral) than somebody else. Feminism needs to be purged of the disease.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

There are many manifestations of PC, so I don’t have the same attitude towards all. In general the state should not interfere with free speech too much. Especially scientific research must be completely free and open. Noone should impose dubious scientific concepts like the “gay gene”. And if one feels "triggered" by offensive humour, one should simply stop listening.

I am however genuinely shocked by extreme racism and sexism. I think it’s a good idea to censor extreme hate speech like Holocaust denial. Actual fascist propaganda is too dangerous to be allowed to reach the public.

I also think PC is an overstated problem, it’s very prominent on the American campus but elsewhere nationalist authoritarianism is a bigger threat. Evangelical preachers aren’t typically persecuted for saying that homosexuality is a sin.

MIGRATION

In general, I support open borders and global citizenship. But we cannot forget about the economy. No country should take in more migrants than it can accommodate. Educated people who are an asset for the labour market should be preferred over the uneducated with little prospect of employment. Also, non-Muslim migrants should be preferred over Muslims, and among Muslims the relatively secular over the devout. The state should also vigorously promote humanism and secularism in immigrant communities. In extreme cases, when immigrant parents brainwash their children with religious fanaticism, the children should be taken away and adopted by secular humanist families.

So I am in favour with temporarily restricting immigration for safety and pragmatic economic reasons, but not for ethnocentric reasons. The problem is that the Third World migrants are too ethnocentric, and not that Anglos are not ethnocentric enough.

Re Muslims: Devout is not a problem; fundamentalist extremism that threatens violence is the problem. We have freedom of religion, so keeping people out who are devoutly religious is not allowed and shouldn't be.

I'm feminist, but not always sympathetic to metoo or too concerned about porno and prostitu. Otherwise I share your views on these subjects

[Captain Genet]

There are some positions in my old posts (especially from Personality Cafe) which now make me cringe:

- Seeing male sexuality as a destructive, barbaric force. In fact, most rapists are driven by anger and desire for power (like the "incel" community shows) and even after castration seek hormones to be able to do the thing again. A healthily socialized man with high libido will seek a high libido wife rather than commit rape. If his wife is not willing, he will use his own hands.
- Seeing sex in general as something that debases a person and distracts from civilized intellectual or cultural pursuits. We "lose" way more time for sleep than for sex. Also, being sexually frustrated warps the mind as shown by 19th century women. Puritanical attitudes won't make a society wholesome, and they would likely make people more interested in porn and prostitution. It's natural for young people to pursue casual sex, and then outgrow it and pursue a long term relationship.
- Genetic determining and looking for genetic engineering as a way to improve public morality. In reality, genetically programmed behaviours are found only in primitive creatures. Tribal warfare is definitely a natural trait of humans, and yet Christianity was able to overcome it not with gene therapies but with ideas. Now we see racism on a way out, also because of ideas and institutional change. Also, genetic modifications without a proper cultural awareness would likely result in parents making their kids pro footballers, supermodels or CEOs rather than idealistic cosmic saints I hope for.

[pbrower2a]

(06-09-2021, 04:47 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: There are some positions in my old posts (especially from Personality Cafe) which now make me cringe:

- Seeing male sexuality as a destructive, barbaric force. In fact, most rapists are driven by anger and desire for power (like the "incel" community shows) and even after castration seek hormones to be able to do the thing again. A healthily socialized man with high libido will seek a high libido wife rather than commit rape. If his wife is not willing, he will use his own hands.

Male sexuality can range from tender and caring (the sort of sexuality that strengthens marriages and keeps women seeking even more of the same) to violent, brutal, and dehumanizing. At tle latter extreme is male sexuality that punishes, abuses, or degrades women. Think of Ted Bundy, who may have been worst because until he did his monstrosities he seemed unlikely to do them. He was the definitive betrayal of expectations. Rape punishes, abuses, degrades, and harms women. Real hate rape and rapists. 

Quote:- Seeing sex in general as something that debases a person and distracts from civilized intellectual or cultural pursuits. We "lose" way more time for sleep than for sex. Also, being sexually frustrated warps the mind as shown by 19th century women. Puritanical attitudes won't make a society wholesome, and they would likely make people more interested in porn and prostitution. It's natural for young people to pursue casual sex, and then outgrow it and pursue a long term relationship.

Sex is a primitive drive operating much the same way in creatures as distant from us as mollusks (the most distant phylum from our chordates that can at times be described as "intelligent". The mechanics are much the same for us as for an octopus. Sex in the animal world mostly follows animal world, and some people are still in the animal world when it comes to sex. Worse, some people do much of their sexuality with a harsh judgment of the partner as a loser. Many serial killers find that they have had sex with a prostitute and then kill the prostitute. 

Quote:- Genetic determining and looking for genetic engineering as a way to improve public morality. In reality, genetically programmed behaviours are found only in primitive creatures. Tribal warfare is definitely a natural trait of humans, and yet Christianity was able to overcome it not with gene therapies but with ideas. Now we see racism on a way out, also because of ideas and institutional change. Also, genetic modifications without a proper cultural awareness would likely result in parents making their kids pro footballers, supermodels or CEOs rather than idealistic cosmic saints I hope for.

Dating is a crude attempt at judging the 'genetic' desirability of someone to bear or side a child (homosexuality perhaps excepted, and too complex for me to fully understand, so I am not going to discuss it). People seek to assess virtues and abilities. Dating may be one way in which to reject people that one deems grossly inadequate as spouses. Stupidity? Callousness? Cruelty? Immaturity? Deviousness? Disloyalty? 

Marriage remains a tricky proposition.

[Captain Genet]

(06-09-2021, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 04:47 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: There are some positions in my old posts (especially from Personality Cafe) which now make me cringe:

- Seeing male sexuality as a destructive, barbaric force. In fact, most rapists are driven by anger and desire for power (like the "incel" community shows) and even after castration seek hormones to be able to do the thing again. A healthily socialized man with high libido will seek a high libido wife rather than commit rape. If his wife is not willing, he will use his own hands.

Male sexuality can range from tender and caring (the sort of sexuality that strengthens marriages and keeps women seeking even more of the same) to violent, brutal, and dehumanizing. At tle latter extreme is male sexuality that punishes, abuses, or degrades women. Think of Ted Bundy, who may have been worst because until he did his monstrosities he seemed unlikely to do them. He was the definitive betrayal of expectations. Rape punishes, abuses, degrades, and harms women. Real hate rape and rapists. 

I still do hate rape and rapists and always will.

Whether male sexuality becomes destructive and barbaric or tender and caring depends on how the man sees the woman. One pole is the Madonna, chaste and sacred, object of pure love offering intercourse as the ultimate reward, which may be postponed for years but is still worth waiting. The other pole is the whore, despised but offering immediate sex. Somewhere in between there is a healthy relationship, where sensual and spiritual passions are balanced.

Quote:Dating is a crude attempt at judging the 'genetic' desirability of someone to bear or side a child (homosexuality perhaps excepted, and too complex for me to fully understand, so I am not going to discuss it). People seek to assess virtues and abilities. Dating may be one way in which to reject people that one deems grossly inadequate as spouses. Stupidity? Callousness? Cruelty? Immaturity? Deviousness? Disloyalty? 

I agree.

My mistake was to overestimate the influence of genes on human character, in relationship context or elsewhere. Hitler's parents were normal people. Donald Trump's sister is also normal. Bad genes may make it easier to make some bad choices and that's all.

Quote:Marriage remains a tricky proposition.

And yet there is no shortage of lifelong, wholesome marriages in the world. The dark side of human sexuality is real, but so is the good side.

[pbrower2a]

(06-15-2021, 05:52 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 04:47 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: There are some positions in my old posts (especially from Personality Cafe) which now make me cringe:

- Seeing male sexuality as a destructive, barbaric force. In fact, most rapists are driven by anger and desire for power (like the "incel" community shows) and even after castration seek hormones to be able to do the thing again. A healthily socialized man with high libido will seek a high libido wife rather than commit rape. If his wife is not willing, he will use his own hands.

Male sexuality can range from tender and caring (the sort of sexuality that strengthens marriages and keeps women seeking even more of the same) to violent, brutal, and dehumanizing. At tle latter extreme is male sexuality that punishes, abuses, or degrades women. Think of Ted Bundy, who may have been worst because until he did his monstrosities he seemed unlikely to do them. He was the definitive betrayal of expectations. Rape punishes, abuses, degrades, and harms women. Real men hate rape and rapists. 

I still do hate rape and rapists and always will.

Whether male sexuality becomes destructive and barbaric or tender and caring depends on how the man sees the woman. One pole is the Madonna, chaste and sacred, object of pure love offering intercourse as the ultimate reward, which may be postponed for years but is still worth waiting. The other pole is the whore, despised but offering immediate sex. Somewhere in between there is a healthy relationship, where sensual and spiritual passions are balanced.

of course there are men who go from one extreme to another, assuming that they marry a Madonna yet get most of their sexual gratification from whores or through abusive sexuality. That is no solution. Healthy sexuality treats the partner with respect and dignity. 

Quote:

Quote:Dating is a crude attempt at judging the 'genetic' desirability of someone to bear or side a child (homosexuality perhaps excepted, and too complex for me to fully understand, so I am not going to discuss it). People seek to assess virtues and abilities. Dating may be one way in which to reject people that one deems grossly inadequate as spouses. Stupidity? Callousness? Cruelty? Immaturity? Deviousness? Disloyalty? 

I agree.

My mistake was to overestimate the influence of genes on human character, in relationship context or elsewhere. Hitler's parents were normal people. Donald Trump's sister is also normal. Bad genes may make it easier to make some bad choices and that's all.

Some people transcend their genes and their upbringing. One psychologist set up a test for sociopaths and found that he fit all the criteria except for doing criminal acts and exploiting others. It could be that extremes of early deprivation accentuate the worst characteristics of sociopathy (think of Charles Manson) or bad family drama (Ted Bundy finding out that his supposed sister was really his mother). On the other hand, alleged "affluenza" might promote extreme irresponsibility, as with Donald Trump... and many vicious aristocrats of the past.  Much of the class struggle that Marxists see as the cornerstone of social conflict and political life results from the assertion of alleged rights of elites to abuse, impoverish, and exploit others and the resistance to such by those whom those elites expect to treat such abuse, poverty, and exploitation as either necessary, inevitable, or even desirable. 

So what happens when an economy no longer needs scarcity to compel people to endure poverty and overwork? All advanced societies face that, and with that the old status symbols will become irrelevant.    

Quote:

Quote:Marriage remains a tricky proposition.

And yet there is no shortage of lifelong, wholesome marriages in the world. The dark side of human sexuality is real, but so is the good side.

Some people organize their livers to that effect, and they are most likely to get that result. Barring trauma, human character rarely changes once one turns 25 or so. I'm not going into what marital patterns are more likely to succeed or fail.

[Anthony '58]

To paraphrase something said in the Bible - at Revelation 2:9 - I know the blasphemy of those who say they are progressives, and are not.

Let's start with gun control: How soon we forget who the most vehement opponents of the 1968 Gun Control Act were - the Black Panthers; and look at who accounts for 95% of those incarcerated under the restrictive, confiscatory gun laws that are already on the books in the various states are - people of color, primarily blacks. MSNBC veteran Melissa Harris-Perry is one of the few progressives who are actually honest about this.

Second, let's turn our attention to immigration: Every time it has been cut off, either legislatively or through the sheer force of events, African-Americans have been the vastly inordinate beneficiaries: When World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, northern employers had no choice but to "import" black workers from the Jim Crow South - a trend that continued when Congress passed two anti-immigration laws in the 1920s, in 1921 (when unemployment was 11.9%) and 1924 (by 1926, unemployment went all the way down to 1.9%, the lowest annual jobless rate ever in peacetime, causing wages to skyrocket and enabling everyone to run out and buy themselves cars and radios and get their homes wired up with electricity and telephone service for the first time ever). When World War II broke out in Europe in 1939? Lather, rinse, and repeat - and this is the way things stayed until a diabolical coalition of the economic right and the multicultural left threw the borders back open again in 1965.

Third, when the USS Liberty was accidentally sunk by the Israelis in the Mediterranean in 1967, conservative Republicans screamed bloody murder while liberal Democrats (joined by "Rockefeller Republicans" like Jacob Javits) rushed to Israel's defense. But now? The left is totally on the side of the "Palestinians" and against the Jews, despite the fact that Muslim countries routinely throw LGBT people off the roofs of double-digit story buildings while the Israeli military has allowed LGBT personnel into its ranks with no strings attached for decades.

And finally, who signed the American-job-destroying NAFTA into law, when many Republicans opposed it?

[pbrower2a]

(01-13-2022, 03:50 PM)Anthony Wrote: To paraphrase something said in the Bible - at Revelation 2:9 - I know the blasphemy of those who say they are progressives, and are not.

Let's start with gun control: How soon we forget who the most vehement opponents of the 1968 Gun Control Act were - the Black Panthers; and look at who accounts for 95% of those incarcerated under the restrictive, confiscatory gun laws that are already on the books in the various states are - people of color, primarily blacks.  MSNBC veteran Melissa Harris-Perry is one of the few progressives who are actually honest about this.

As with drugs, the lack of privacy that is one hallmark of poverty makes the concealment of illegal behavior more difficult for poor offenders. This is a class issue and to the extent that race and class result intertwine, such will disproportionately hurt blacks.

The Black Panthers get little political support among blacks.

Quote:Second, let's turn our attention to immigration: Every time it has been cut off, either legislatively or through the sheer force of events, African-Americans have been the vastly inordinate beneficiaries: When World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, northern employers had no choice but to "import" black workers from the Jim Crow South - a trend that continued when Congress passed two anti-immigration laws in the 1920s, in 1921 (when unemployment was 11.9%) and 1924 (by 1926, unemployment went all the way down to 1.9%, the lowest annual jobless rate ever in peacetime, causing wages to skyrocket and enabling everyone to run out and buy themselves cars and radios and get their homes wired up with electricity and telephone service for the first time ever).  When World War II broke out in Europe in 1939?  Lather, rinse, and repeat - and this is the way things stayed until a diabolical coalition of the economic right and the multicultural left threw the borders back open again in 1965.

America went into World War II with practically no support for open borders even though such might have been the best hope for about six million people that the Nazis slaughtered. The end of the war left hundreds of thousands of stateless people, and in view of recent events in Europe (first the Holocaust and then the Communist takeover of central and Balkan Europe where there were still significant Jewish populations; many Jews were small-business owners who had no viable role under Commie regimes), Jewish refugees became an exception. American GI's often ended up with war brides (take away the recent fascism and the German and Japanese weren't so bad after all) became another opening. A large Mexican-American population could obviously assimilate Latin-American immigrants similar in culture to them -- and did. Then there were Chinese getting away from Mao. The ideological position switched incrementally, but quickly.  

Another thing -- overseas families of GI brides often found out how much better life was in America and sought to join in. That explains much of the Korean-American and Filipino-American communities in America. 

Quote:Third, when the USS Liberty was accidentally sunk by the Israelis in the Mediterranean in 1967, conservative Republicans screamed bloody murder while liberal Democrats (joined by "Rockefeller Republicans" like Jacob Javits) rushed to Israel's defense.  But now?  The left is totally on the side of the "Palestinians" and against the Jews, despite the fact that Muslim countries routinely throw LGBT people off the roofs of double-digit story buildings while the Israeli military has allowed LGBT personnel into its ranks with no strings attached for decades.

Let's remember that Jacob Javits was a Jew. Jews wisely excoriate their own rogues, but they recognize accidents for what they are. (Really it is tough to be a rogue Jew. Jews want nothing to do with a rogue who has done bad things to fellow Jews, and mainstream Jews typically warn gentiles about them. I have seen Jewish discussion directed at youth about Jewish figures of organized crime, and that discussion is hostile. In essence one can theoretically be good at anything if a Jew; just don't be a criminal because even if one is good at it one is an object of shame and loathing. 

The best way to deal with LGBT people is with kindness and acceptance. That is liberal, but it also fits such conservative values as a respect for law and order. Zionism has long had an enlightened, liberal wing that wanted Israel to be a tolerant, liberal democracy. As someone almost half German or Swiss in ancestry and having sought to connect to the benign part of that heritage I find the liberal, sophisticated, enlightened Jews much more like me than unlike me. Then again I would have to say that I have more in common with an Iranian liberal than with an American fascist.

Tough luck, violent homophobes! They are hard to distinguish from terrorists.     

Quote:And finally, who signed the American-job-destroying NAFTA into law, when many Republicans opposed it?

Cheap imports from China have done more harm to Latin America than NAFTA has done good in Latin America.