The Pope telling people Donald Trump is "anti-life" for "kicking out migrants".
Who picked this retard?
If he loves migrants so much he can put them all up in his solid gold house next to his solid gold hat.
If he loves migrants so much he can put them all up in his solid gold house next to his solid gold hat.
@PNS -- According to Alex Jones, this Pope doesn't believe that Jesus Christ will return and other parts of scripture are probably not true. Kind of sounds ant-Catholic to me.
When do people become native to a land?
The mayflower landed in America in 1620, 400 years ago. If we assume about 4 generations per century, that means some people who migrated from Europe might be in their 16th generation in North America.
If someone who has been in America for 400 years and 16 generations, wouldn't not migrating look like not leaving America? If they moved for example back to England, arguably they'd be much more alien there than in the land of their great great great grandfathers.
There are of course indigenous people who were there longer, but that's a dangerous can of worms to open. Are the Japanese han majority not native to Japan? Are Arab Muslims not native to Pakistan, most of the middle east, or North Africa? Is the UKs royal family not native to England? It seems like only in one example is it acceptable to call someone out for being born in the same place as their great grandparents as if they're invaders.
I think this train of thought really shows how broken the supposed gotcha of "if they don't like migration they shouldn't have migrated to north America" is. If nobody has migrated for 16 generations that argument is kind of moot, isn't it? To move anywhere else would be the first migration in centuries. What are people whose distant ancestors migrated supposed to do? Throw themselves up on their swords for the actions of ancestors 16 generations removed from themselves? Should there be ethnic cleansing of lands with indigenous people to eliminate native populations that aren't as old?
The mayflower landed in America in 1620, 400 years ago. If we assume about 4 generations per century, that means some people who migrated from Europe might be in their 16th generation in North America.
If someone who has been in America for 400 years and 16 generations, wouldn't not migrating look like not leaving America? If they moved for example back to England, arguably they'd be much more alien there than in the land of their great great great grandfathers.
There are of course indigenous people who were there longer, but that's a dangerous can of worms to open. Are the Japanese han majority not native to Japan? Are Arab Muslims not native to Pakistan, most of the middle east, or North Africa? Is the UKs royal family not native to England? It seems like only in one example is it acceptable to call someone out for being born in the same place as their great grandparents as if they're invaders.
I think this train of thought really shows how broken the supposed gotcha of "if they don't like migration they shouldn't have migrated to north America" is. If nobody has migrated for 16 generations that argument is kind of moot, isn't it? To move anywhere else would be the first migration in centuries. What are people whose distant ancestors migrated supposed to do? Throw themselves up on their swords for the actions of ancestors 16 generations removed from themselves? Should there be ethnic cleansing of lands with indigenous people to eliminate native populations that aren't as old?
Exactly, so anyone who makes arguments like "this country is only for us natives" is a hypocrite, as there will always be someone who's nativer-than-thou.
>Throw themselves up on their swords for the actions of ancestors 16 generations removed from themselves? Should there be ethnic cleansing of lands with indigenous people to eliminate native populations that aren't as old?
I think it's interesting that this is the conclusion about my motives you jump to.
I think it's interesting that this is the conclusion about my motives you jump to.
I'm not concluding anything about your motive, but I am presenting you with one of the outcomes of your train of thought.
It isn't healthy to be attacking a people who have existed somewhere for 400 years as if they just moved in yesterday. Even if you managed to be personally reasonable in using that argument by trying to invoke ancient grievances solely in pursuit of getting people to behave and what you believe to be a more moral way moving forward, it is an argument with inherently unreasonable ends and we need to keep that in mind.
The argument explicitly blames people who haven't done a thing for something their distance ancestors did. It explicitly treats them as the exact same as the people who originally did the thing. It isn't implied, it's right there in the argument. "Why did you migrate then?" They didn't. They live exactly where they were born, and exactly where their parents were born, and exactly where their grandparents were born. But if such an argument is going to explicitly lay the sins of people's ancestors at the feet of people who are alive today, eventually somebody is going to come up with a bright idea of not just using the supposition as a reason to try to be more moral, but instead to actively punish those who the argument says effectively did the thing.
The exact same line of thought is used by racial supremacists to blame people for the crimes of their kin. White supremacists often point at the crime rate among black people and will blame all black people for the crimes of some black people. Some people who want to attack indigenous peoples will greatly point out that human sacrifice particularly of unwilling participants is an abomination to our modern eyes as if those same people were the ones who did it. There are even people who still hold the Japanese people responsible for the atrocities of the Pacific theater of World War II, or the use of tactics like scalping in the American Indian wars, or that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11.
So I tend to agree that not all black people are responsible for every crime committed by a black person, and I tend to agree that not all indigenous people are responsible for the human sacrifices of 600 years ago, and I tend to agree that currently living Japanese people are not responsible for the atrocities of World War 2, and I tend to agree that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11, so all that being the case I have to agree that it is not a good practice to blame people who have never migrated for the migrations of their ancient ancestors.
It isn't healthy to be attacking a people who have existed somewhere for 400 years as if they just moved in yesterday. Even if you managed to be personally reasonable in using that argument by trying to invoke ancient grievances solely in pursuit of getting people to behave and what you believe to be a more moral way moving forward, it is an argument with inherently unreasonable ends and we need to keep that in mind.
The argument explicitly blames people who haven't done a thing for something their distance ancestors did. It explicitly treats them as the exact same as the people who originally did the thing. It isn't implied, it's right there in the argument. "Why did you migrate then?" They didn't. They live exactly where they were born, and exactly where their parents were born, and exactly where their grandparents were born. But if such an argument is going to explicitly lay the sins of people's ancestors at the feet of people who are alive today, eventually somebody is going to come up with a bright idea of not just using the supposition as a reason to try to be more moral, but instead to actively punish those who the argument says effectively did the thing.
The exact same line of thought is used by racial supremacists to blame people for the crimes of their kin. White supremacists often point at the crime rate among black people and will blame all black people for the crimes of some black people. Some people who want to attack indigenous peoples will greatly point out that human sacrifice particularly of unwilling participants is an abomination to our modern eyes as if those same people were the ones who did it. There are even people who still hold the Japanese people responsible for the atrocities of the Pacific theater of World War II, or the use of tactics like scalping in the American Indian wars, or that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11.
So I tend to agree that not all black people are responsible for every crime committed by a black person, and I tend to agree that not all indigenous people are responsible for the human sacrifices of 600 years ago, and I tend to agree that currently living Japanese people are not responsible for the atrocities of World War 2, and I tend to agree that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11, so all that being the case I have to agree that it is not a good practice to blame people who have never migrated for the migrations of their ancient ancestors.
@sj_zero @PNS @Hyolobrika
Just my $0.02, but I judge a person's responsibility for past atrocities based on whether they continue to promote the same ideology which instigated it. If they refuse to do that, then they aren't responsible. If they do so, even after having it pointed out to them, they should be dealt with all due prejudice.
Just my $0.02, but I judge a person's responsibility for past atrocities based on whether they continue to promote the same ideology which instigated it. If they refuse to do that, then they aren't responsible. If they do so, even after having it pointed out to them, they should be dealt with all due prejudice.
I wasn't trying to attack anyone and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
I was just pointing out how hypocritical it is to hate migrants (which usually in my experience includes >1st generation) when your ancestors were also migrants.
I wasn't saying anything about past atrocities.
I was just pointing out how hypocritical it is to hate migrants (which usually in my experience includes >1st generation) when your ancestors were also migrants.
I wasn't saying anything about past atrocities.
I'll admit maybe my post was a bit inflammatory, but in my defense so were the posts I was responding to.
You know I didn't include it, but I tend to think that you're probably on the right track there. If Osama bin laden had sons, if they found the events of 9/11 reprehensible then you can't very well hold them responsible for the things that Osama did, but if they cheered for it and say death to America and are planning to do the exact same thing all over again then you can judge them on their own demerits.
Now that being said, there's probably multiple layers here where you can hold them in contempt for the views that they hold and the things that they've personally done but it's not like there's a moral justification to hunt down, kill, and feed little billy bin laden to the sharks because his dad did a 9/11. You judge him for the things that he actually did.
Now that being said, there's probably multiple layers here where you can hold them in contempt for the views that they hold and the things that they've personally done but it's not like there's a moral justification to hunt down, kill, and feed little billy bin laden to the sharks because his dad did a 9/11. You judge him for the things that he actually did.
@Hyolobrika @PNS
Tbh I was just replying to @sj_zero 's response about not blaming people based on actions of their ancestors, etc. Didn't even read the full thread. So my bad if my interjection was out of context.
Tbh I was just replying to @sj_zero 's response about not blaming people based on actions of their ancestors, etc. Didn't even read the full thread. So my bad if my interjection was out of context.
We're all just trying to find the truth here. All of us are occasionally going to use some inflammatory words, myself included, as long as we can pat each other on the back and call each other friends at the end I'm thankful for people who are willing to push back against the things that I say.
It wasn't. sj_zero just misinterpreted something I said, so I was clearing things up. Responded to you so you would be tagged as well and see it since it looked like you shared the misinterpretation.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@sj_zero @PNS @Hyolobrika
I think about this stuff probably more than is really healthy. My personal dog in the race is being a life-long Pagan, and having to put up with the violently delusional rhetoric of Abrahamic religion. In the past several years I've seen a major uptick in that, and started pushing back against it with some rhetoric of my own (based on aforementioned reasoning). Maybe that makes me guilty of the same kind of bigotry, but frankly if it reaches a head and another physical persecution of non-Abrahamites begins in earnest, I'm very likely gonna start literally head-hunting those who preach it, and I won't lose a second of sleep over it. They've had it a long time coming and richly deserve a generous helping of their own medicine.
I think about this stuff probably more than is really healthy. My personal dog in the race is being a life-long Pagan, and having to put up with the violently delusional rhetoric of Abrahamic religion. In the past several years I've seen a major uptick in that, and started pushing back against it with some rhetoric of my own (based on aforementioned reasoning). Maybe that makes me guilty of the same kind of bigotry, but frankly if it reaches a head and another physical persecution of non-Abrahamites begins in earnest, I'm very likely gonna start literally head-hunting those who preach it, and I won't lose a second of sleep over it. They've had it a long time coming and richly deserve a generous helping of their own medicine.
Whatifalthist has laid out a pretty good case over the years that you are correct to be concerned. The models of Peter turchin predict that there's going to be a major revolution sometime soon, and unfortunately it is often the most extreme factions that win revolutions. It would be one thing if the intellectual petersonians were to win the next century, but it seems much more likely that a much more unreasonable faction will end up taking the reins and all reasonable people should have reason to be concerned. Arguably the French revolution marked the beginning of the modernist period, and even today we are still living with the fallout of the policies of the Jacobins around the world, as well as the Russian Bolsheviks and the Chinese maoists. In a lot of ways, extreme progressives are still trying to achieve some of the societal changes that were already tried back during the French revolution and scaled back because they were just too much.
New eras tend to be reactions to the last, and this era that we're likely concluding right now is the most feminized, the most egalitarian, and the most open in history. For that reason, I would fully expect there to be an incoming era of extreme masculinity, extreme hierarchy and class distinctions, and potentially one of the most closed in history. That our current state of Muslims are part of a reaction to the Muslim Golden age ending and everyone can see what that looks like.
I think it's important overall to have a view of the world that isn't just a reaction to whatever exists today. Yesterday I wrote a pretty long post describing a way of being that in my view is about the only way that we could improve the world on a personal level, and one of the key things about it is that other than my criticism of modern movements as trying to save the world where the individuals participating can't even save themselves, it is rooted in timeless ideas of acting with virtue and following your personal moral compass. In doing so, often you will start to see movements that you did agree with starting to miss their Mark and movements that you didn't agree with saying some things that you can't argue against, and that doesn't mean that you should go flipping between one side or the other but rather that you need to have that moral center within yourself and not rely on society to necessarily provided for you.
New eras tend to be reactions to the last, and this era that we're likely concluding right now is the most feminized, the most egalitarian, and the most open in history. For that reason, I would fully expect there to be an incoming era of extreme masculinity, extreme hierarchy and class distinctions, and potentially one of the most closed in history. That our current state of Muslims are part of a reaction to the Muslim Golden age ending and everyone can see what that looks like.
I think it's important overall to have a view of the world that isn't just a reaction to whatever exists today. Yesterday I wrote a pretty long post describing a way of being that in my view is about the only way that we could improve the world on a personal level, and one of the key things about it is that other than my criticism of modern movements as trying to save the world where the individuals participating can't even save themselves, it is rooted in timeless ideas of acting with virtue and following your personal moral compass. In doing so, often you will start to see movements that you did agree with starting to miss their Mark and movements that you didn't agree with saying some things that you can't argue against, and that doesn't mean that you should go flipping between one side or the other but rather that you need to have that moral center within yourself and not rely on society to necessarily provided for you.