rigorousintuition.ca

I'm glad they don't refuse your mission.

jakell » 05 Mar 2016 23:35 wrote:
You're really reaching there, that isn't really a given in what I wrote.

We've been here before and I think you are studying my output as if it's a well written and considered paper, it's not. This is a conversational format and if I don't bang stuff down and press submit then it doesn't get done. The idea is to hone ideas and phraseology afterwards, not agonize over them and never post

Its completely reasonable given your refusal to ever condemn white nationalism and especially to condemn or reject the violence the OP was bemoaning. Its not a one off thing either.

What, that I regret the passing of the NF? That seems to be pretty much of a leap.

Its not that you regret its passing. Its the idea you attach to your regret about its passing.
.

What did you think of my musings above on WN tropes? (you can consider those a 'work in progress' too).

Not much. i am actually wondering why you want to keep inserting WN tropes into the discussion here, especially in such dubious circumstances. Suggesting WNs might have some idea about the "outlying" results in some data someone posted about black people's behaviour is ridiculous. Wondering why the data is anomalous is stupid. The accompanying survey showed that a majority of people viewed black people as "net takers" and a leading presidential candidate has called Hispanic people rapists, drug dealers and killers ie a leading presidential candidate thinks they are by definition criminal.

Therefore its hardly surprising that 83% of black people and 62% of Hispanic people see race as an important component of their identity (as opposed to 41% of white people). Because identity isn't just how you see yourself. Its how you see your place in society which is something that other people impose on you as often as not.

We don't need to frame this data in light of what white nationalists think. There is no reason for it. Unless you want to promote what white nationalists think I spose.

Joe Hillshoist » Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:56 pm wrote:

jakell » 05 Mar 2016 23:35 wrote:
You're really reaching there, that isn't really a given in what I wrote.

We've been here before and I think you are studying my output as if it's a well written and considered paper, it's not. This is a conversational format and if I don't bang stuff down and press submit then it doesn't get done. The idea is to hone ideas and phraseology afterwards, not agonize over them and never post

Its completely reasonable given your refusal to ever condemn white nationalism and especially to condemn or reject the violence the OP was bemoaning. Its not a one off thing either.

What, that I regret the passing of the NF? That seems to be pretty much of a leap.

Its not that you regret its passing. Its the idea you attach to your regret about its passing.
.

What did you think of my musings above on WN tropes? (you can consider those a 'work in progress' too).

Not much. i am actually wondering why you want to keep inserting WN tropes into the discussion here, especially in such dubious circumstances. Suggesting WNs might have some idea about the "outlying" results in some data someone posted about black people's behaviour is ridiculous. Wondering why the data is anomalous is stupid. The accompanying survey showed that a majority of people viewed black people as "net takers" and a leading presidential candidate has called Hispanic people rapists, drug dealers and killers ie a leading presidential candidate thinks they are by definition criminal.

Therefore its hardly surprising that 83% of black people and 62% of Hispanic people see race as an important component of their identity (as opposed to 41% of white people). Because identity isn't just how you see yourself. Its how you see your place in society which is something that other people impose on you as often as not.

We don't need to frame this data in light of what white nationalists think. There is no reason for it. Unless you want to promote what white nationalists think I spose.

Actually I was going to come to this bit. It seems that you and AD seem to solely (so far) frame the OP in terms of racist violence, which does it an injustice I think. Even though that is present, the piece seems far broader than that and is worthy of wider discussion. the reason I don't see that as its focus is that such violence is a constant backdrop to most of this subject, and doesn't seem especially prominent here (except to folks who only bothered reading the first few paragraphs maybe.)

Why WN tropes? Well that's nothing new, and has been my theme for the last few years here, plus accompanying discussion and refutations. You say that you (we?) already 'know' them, but I suspect, as with a great deal of the antifa scene, this is mainly outdated and superficial. Even if it's not, it does no harm to reinforce/revisit them, especially in the light of present contexts
A comparison I've made regarding RI specifically is how it doesn't usually mind exploring dark themes (ritual abuse for instance), but there seems to be an disproportionate reaction to this particular field. This seems odd to me and piques my curiosity.
Needless to say I will be continuing in this vein until I lose interest, and this last part provides an added mystery element.

Back to the OP soon I hope, it's more than simply about violence, but positives too, plus musings that are neither but still of interest.

Seems to me that the "histrionic" reactions were deemed harmful to serious examination of dark themes like the one you mentioned.

Possibly that is a meta-goal, here.

tapitsbo » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:05 am wrote:Seems to me that the "histrionic" reactions were deemed harmful to serious examination of dark themes like the one you mentioned.

Possibly that is a meta-goal, here.

Bingo!..you got it in one. I flagged this as a mystery, but really I see this as the case too. I downplay it because it's not relevent to the theme itself (like you say, it's a meta-theme).

It's not just here though, it's much wider, with occurrences such as Rotherham being a possible result,

Even though that is present, the piece seems far broader than that and is worthy of wider discussion.

It doesn't deserve the uncritical promotion of white nationalist tropes, which is what you are doing.

It is precisely for these reasons that I have always thought that these poor white people and these poor black people should unite and confront the people who oversee all of our miseries. It is classic divide and rule. The biggest fear of all of the mainstream politicians is that we all reach a point where we understand how much we have in common and, instead of turning on ourselves, we turn on them. In poetry and prose I have said that unity is strength, and that we should get to a point where we are not talking about black rights or white rights, Asian rights or rights for migrant workers; we are just talking about our rights. As long as people of colour and minority groups are seen as the other, as long as we are being blamed for all of society’s ills (including too many cars on our roads), we will keep trying to get our politicians to be honest, and we will continue to call on the white working classes to unite with us. But, if they don’t, we will still have to fight racists on the streets. This is personal.

You keep talking about Griffin - a violent thug who promotes "voluntary repatriation" (as if violence would have no influence on helping people voluntarily choose to leave the UK). Under no circumstances will the BN/WN movement promote a situation where white and non white poms unite to fight for their mutual rights. They have no place in this conversation, except as something to be dismissed as an impediment to the goals of the OP.

I believe one of AD's most pressing concerns is groups who do just that - fighting for mutual rights with mutual recognition. On the contrary, one group is to deconstructed and characterized as fictional, while the other remains coherent and "natural", or perhaps suffering due to the outside imposition of a narrative which must be disowned at all costs (of course "othering" is inherent to intersubjectivity, so all groups will have their own narratives about each other... I am not saying that these should be beyond criticism, but I interpret AD's brand of thinking as aimed at a meta-goal of making dialogue impossible, period)

Dialogue is impossible.

Been there, done that. Ultimately WN groups are not interested in a situation where any concerns other than those that benefit white nationalism are addressed.

Joe Hillshoist » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:23 am wrote:

Even though that is present, the piece seems far broader than that and is worthy of wider discussion.

It doesn't deserve the uncritical promotion of white nationalist tropes, which is what you are doing.

It is precisely for these reasons that I have always thought that these poor white people and these poor black people should unite and confront the people who oversee all of our miseries. It is classic divide and rule. The biggest fear of all of the mainstream politicians is that we all reach a point where we understand how much we have in common and, instead of turning on ourselves, we turn on them. In poetry and prose I have said that unity is strength, and that we should get to a point where we are not talking about black rights or white rights, Asian rights or rights for migrant workers; we are just talking about our rights. As long as people of colour and minority groups are seen as the other, as long as we are being blamed for all of society’s ills (including too many cars on our roads), we will keep trying to get our politicians to be honest, and we will continue to call on the white working classes to unite with us. But, if they don’t, we will still have to fight racists on the streets. This is personal.

You keep talking about Griffin - a violent thug who promotes "voluntary repatriation" (as if violence would have no influence on helping people voluntarily choose to leave the UK). Under no circumstances will the BN/WN movement promote a situation where white and non white poms unite to fight for their mutual rights. They have no place in this conversation, except as something to be dismissed as an impediment to the goals of the OP.

I haven't been promoting anything and as far as I can recall have only mentioned Griffin once here in the context of discussion of NF/BNP

Your smearing is starting to look cheap and as unconvincing as AD's was. In case you haven't noticed, I'm done explaining myself to you (you aren't interested), and will stick to brief refutations for now.

The only thing that "cures" white nationalism seems to be eckies and doof music. An idea thats been explored here before, and that touched on whether or not the Tories' 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was aimed at reducing the opportunites for people to undo oppressive conditioning that suited the establishment and similar imprinting by using ecstatic processes.

Joe Hillshoist » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:38 pm wrote:Dialogue is impossible.

Been there, done that. Ultimately WN groups are not interested in a situation where any concerns other than those that benefit white nationalism are addressed.

Who is dialogue impossible with? I hope this isn't an admission.

I am convinced "white nationalism" itself is a thought-stopping concept that induces cognitive dissonance.

All groups have to compromise and it would appear in 2016 that governments who do exactly what you seem to wish suppressed (giving group political rights to european ethnic groups) are recognized internationally.

So what position is dialogue impossible with, the position of "WN's" plucked from AD's archives, your position, or what? You've been willing enough to have a dialogue with me that has at least made me think.

I can't claim to know a lot about what jakell's position is, his "dialogue" at least makes me laugh, though.

Without a doubt, characters like jakell and tapitsbo would have been shown the door long ago, back when Jeff Wells was a more active presence here.

jakell » 06 Mar 2016 12:38 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:23 am wrote:

Even though that is present, the piece seems far broader than that and is worthy of wider discussion.

It doesn't deserve the uncritical promotion of white nationalist tropes, which is what you are doing.

It is precisely for these reasons that I have always thought that these poor white people and these poor black people should unite and confront the people who oversee all of our miseries. It is classic divide and rule. The biggest fear of all of the mainstream politicians is that we all reach a point where we understand how much we have in common and, instead of turning on ourselves, we turn on them. In poetry and prose I have said that unity is strength, and that we should get to a point where we are not talking about black rights or white rights, Asian rights or rights for migrant workers; we are just talking about our rights. As long as people of colour and minority groups are seen as the other, as long as we are being blamed for all of society’s ills (including too many cars on our roads), we will keep trying to get our politicians to be honest, and we will continue to call on the white working classes to unite with us. But, if they don’t, we will still have to fight racists on the streets. This is personal.

You keep talking about Griffin - a violent thug who promotes "voluntary repatriation" (as if violence would have no influence on helping people voluntarily choose to leave the UK). Under no circumstances will the BN/WN movement promote a situation where white and non white poms unite to fight for their mutual rights. They have no place in this conversation, except as something to be dismissed as an impediment to the goals of the OP.

I haven't been promoting anything and as far as I can recall have only mentioned Griffin once here in the context of discussion of NF/BNP

Your smearing is starting to look cheap and as unconvincing as AD's was. In case you haven't noticed, I'm done explaining myself to you (you aren't interested), and will stick to brief refutations for now.

jakell: I haven't been promoting anything.

in response to

Me: Griffin promotes...

Jakell: Your smearing...

But you're right (or alt right or far right or something) - I''m not interested in your bullshit. Apart from criticising it (obviously). And that isn't out of interest. Once upon a time you would have been run out of this joint for being an arsehole and I wouldn't be surprised if that has already happened under some other username.

tapitsbo » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:58 am wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:38 pm wrote:Dialogue is impossible.

Been there, done that. Ultimately WN groups are not interested in a situation where any concerns other than those that benefit white nationalism are addressed.

Who is dialogue impossible with? I hope this isn't an admission.

I am convinced "white nationalism" itself is a thought-stopping concept that induces cognitive dissonance.

Nothing is really thought-stopping in itself, it is usually made that way by external factors. I've made plenty of clear descriptions and refutations of it, past and present. (the thought stopping usually comes shortly afterwards)

All groups have to compromise and it would appear in 2016 that governments who do exactly what you seem to wish suppressed (giving group political rights to european ethnic groups) are recognized internationally.

So what position is dialogue impossible with, the position of "WN's" plucked from AD's archives, your position, or what? You've been willing enough to have a dialogue with me that has at least made me think.

I can't claim to know a lot about what jakell's position is, his "dialogue" at least makes me laugh, though.

I do try to be 'snappy' nowadays, gone are the days when I would spend days going round and round (and round) with folks. Life's too short and I'm getting old.

tapitsbo » 06 Mar 2016 12:58 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:38 pm wrote:Dialogue is impossible.

Been there, done that. Ultimately WN groups are not interested in a situation where any concerns other than those that benefit white nationalism are addressed.

Who is dialogue impossible with? I hope this isn't an admission.

I am convinced "white nationalism" itself is a thought-stopping concept that induces cognitive dissonance.

All groups have to compromise and it would appear in 2016 that governments who do exactly what you seem to wish suppressed (giving group political rights to european ethnic groups) are recognized internationally.

So what position is dialogue impossible with, the position of "WN's" plucked from AD's archives, your position, or what? You've been willing enough to have a dialogue with me that has at least made me think.

I can't claim to know a lot about what jakell's position is, his "dialogue" at least makes me laugh, though.

Dialogue is impossible with committed white nationalists. Unless you agree with them. Then its not so much a dialogue as an echo chamber. I'm mixed race so automatically I am the worst of the worst in their eyes.

I get what you mean by european ethnic groups finally. Whiteness isn't an ethnicity tho. Its an artificial construct claimed by the same types of people who imposed another artificial construct (blackness) on other people to enable their historic and ongoing exploitation.