Interesting conversation keep it up.It is true there are beautiful women of all shades , well done on this issue Dr.Hanania ,the Korean cheerleaders further demonstrate this absolutely vital point
I always did find it interesting how horny didn't win in its war against racism in the states, that's not quite how it went down in the former Spanish colonies (kind of, it is true that the upper classes are rather white here).
“I present a novel theory of “horny posting,” which sees it as a way to defeat both inceldom and racism, the two great evils of the right.”
You don’t seem to make a distinction between white nationalists who want to use state coercion against everyone to maintain a white nation and those whites who prefer their own kind but simply want their freedom of association returned to them, including control of their de facto property in the form of streets, roads, etc. Instead, you condemn the racism of both groups, which means morally policing preferences you don’t like as if you’re a woke SNL Church Lady. If you don’t think women discriminating against short men is wrong, then rejecting people based on alleged “superficial” traits like skin color can’t be wrong either. Be consistent.
I never cared if people were racist in their personal lives or even business. Racists want to restrict immigration on the basis of racism, which is using state power for their ends. I reject your “everything public is actually private” theory.
Thanks for your reply. In my comment, I literally disavowed white nationalists who want to use state power to impose their preferences. However, it’s a fact that the roads, streets, etc. are de facto owned by the natives, so, naturally, you must embrace socialism in this area for your pro-immigration views to go forward. Ironically, you are in the same camp as the white nationalists—you simply want to impose your anti-racist preferences on the entire nation. Also, if you don’t care if someone is racist in their personal lives, then why criticize racists for excluding non-whites based on “superficial” characteristics? (I.e., the thoughtless kindergarten teacher view you recently defended.) That’s obviously not the real issue—the real issue is liberty, not racism. But, again, unless the state owns the streets, things get very murky for your views. EHC is a good heuristic but it cannot be a total replacement for thought in this area. As the libertarian philosopher Jan Lester argues, when the state controls what should be private property, “libertarian directionalism” is the best approach. https://open.substack.com/pub/jclester/p/immigration-and-libertarianism?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios
Why is your theory just about immigration? We have public ownership in the roads, so government should decide how you can dress, how loud you can speak, etc? It should be able to exclude certain citizens from the road based on preferences of others.
Sorry for the reading assignment. I hate it when people do that to me. The quick answer is that the government does regulate noise and dress—there are noise ordinances and prohibitions against nudity, etc. However, I am speaking mainly of local streets, parks, etc. You would certainly agree that there can be gated communities that exclude based on race—now imagine that those communities multiply and are somewhat contiguous. In a world devoid of rampant PC propaganda, they would likely spread. (If this were racist 1950s America and we went full libertarian, non-white immigration would likely be considerably diminished but there would still be areas for Nvidia entrepreneurs and other non-white workers.) In the case of access roads, non-whites could not be excluded because that would infringe their liberty. (This is why if someone were able to buy all the property around your house, you would be allowed to traverse his property to leave your house.) But do read the Lester article—it’s entertaining even if you ultimately disagree.
This was good! More of this guys.
This is what failing to recognize the banality of evil looks like.
God Noah has some of the dumbest ideas imaginable. Richard is too nice.
Interesting conversation keep it up.It is true there are beautiful women of all shades , well done on this issue Dr.Hanania ,the Korean cheerleaders further demonstrate this absolutely vital point
I always did find it interesting how horny didn't win in its war against racism in the states, that's not quite how it went down in the former Spanish colonies (kind of, it is true that the upper classes are rather white here).
Ukraine has said they won’t take the deal, Russia would be happy to take it.
Palestinians don’t want to leave. It’s not any more complicated than that.
“I present a novel theory of “horny posting,” which sees it as a way to defeat both inceldom and racism, the two great evils of the right.”
You don’t seem to make a distinction between white nationalists who want to use state coercion against everyone to maintain a white nation and those whites who prefer their own kind but simply want their freedom of association returned to them, including control of their de facto property in the form of streets, roads, etc. Instead, you condemn the racism of both groups, which means morally policing preferences you don’t like as if you’re a woke SNL Church Lady. If you don’t think women discriminating against short men is wrong, then rejecting people based on alleged “superficial” traits like skin color can’t be wrong either. Be consistent.
I never cared if people were racist in their personal lives or even business. Racists want to restrict immigration on the basis of racism, which is using state power for their ends. I reject your “everything public is actually private” theory.
Thanks for your reply. In my comment, I literally disavowed white nationalists who want to use state power to impose their preferences. However, it’s a fact that the roads, streets, etc. are de facto owned by the natives, so, naturally, you must embrace socialism in this area for your pro-immigration views to go forward. Ironically, you are in the same camp as the white nationalists—you simply want to impose your anti-racist preferences on the entire nation. Also, if you don’t care if someone is racist in their personal lives, then why criticize racists for excluding non-whites based on “superficial” characteristics? (I.e., the thoughtless kindergarten teacher view you recently defended.) That’s obviously not the real issue—the real issue is liberty, not racism. But, again, unless the state owns the streets, things get very murky for your views. EHC is a good heuristic but it cannot be a total replacement for thought in this area. As the libertarian philosopher Jan Lester argues, when the state controls what should be private property, “libertarian directionalism” is the best approach. https://open.substack.com/pub/jclester/p/immigration-and-libertarianism?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios
Why is your theory just about immigration? We have public ownership in the roads, so government should decide how you can dress, how loud you can speak, etc? It should be able to exclude certain citizens from the road based on preferences of others.
Sorry for the reading assignment. I hate it when people do that to me. The quick answer is that the government does regulate noise and dress—there are noise ordinances and prohibitions against nudity, etc. However, I am speaking mainly of local streets, parks, etc. You would certainly agree that there can be gated communities that exclude based on race—now imagine that those communities multiply and are somewhat contiguous. In a world devoid of rampant PC propaganda, they would likely spread. (If this were racist 1950s America and we went full libertarian, non-white immigration would likely be considerably diminished but there would still be areas for Nvidia entrepreneurs and other non-white workers.) In the case of access roads, non-whites could not be excluded because that would infringe their liberty. (This is why if someone were able to buy all the property around your house, you would be allowed to traverse his property to leave your house.) But do read the Lester article—it’s entertaining even if you ultimately disagree.
See the Lester article I linked.