"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[The Great Zaganza]

Neanderthals do agree: Europeans carry part of their genetic code.
You seem to be thinking of a kind of Australia situation, with a native ecosystem being replaced by invasive species.
But no world society has been this isolated in hundreds of years.

We know from immunology that offspring from genetically dissimilar parents are able to resist more diseases, whereas the lesson of the Royal Families of Europe is that trying to stay pure leads to infertility and sickness.

Multi-ethnicity is a blessing to humanity's biological fitness.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Neanderthals do agree: Europeans carry part of their genetic code.
You seem to be thinking of a kind of Australia situation, with a native ecosystem being replaced by invasive species.
But no world society has been this isolated in hundreds of years.

We know from immunology that offspring from genetically dissimilar parents are able to resist more diseases, whereas the lesson of the Royal Families of Europe is that trying to stay pure leads to infertility and sickness.

Multi-ethnicity is a blessing to humanity's biological fitness.

Bone Marrow Transplants - When Race Is An Issue (Time Magazine)

Blacks face a tougher time finding a kidney transplant (USA Today)

"Transplant recipients must have similar genes in their immune systems to those of the donor. Otherwise, the body will reject the organ.

"The genetic makeup is so broad-based in African-Americans," said Dr. Marquetta Faulkner, chief of nephrology at Meharry Medical College. "African-Americans have a big mix of Caucasian, African — it just depends on your genetic makeup."

Study: Students of Mixed Race Suffer More Health Problems (Diverse Education)

So it's very different to acknowledge that having kids with your sister or first cousin obviously leads to genetic problems than to try to claim that mixing with the most genetically distinct person you can find is good for your offspring. Not true.

Some of the most homogeneous people in the world have some of the best health. Danish people and such, for instance. Btw, did you know that the Danish genome is small enough that if a Danish woman has a child with Nigerian man, for instance, she can actually be more closely related to her neighbor's child than to her own?

You are awfully quick to throw away the genetic refinements of millennia in the span of one or two human lifetimes. It's very reckless.

But of course, no other major racial groups are going anywhere. They're too vast and their territories too uncontested for that. Only whites are on a trajectory to oblivion currently.

Neanderthals do agree: Europeans carry part of their genetic code.

K, so in an alternate reality where the Germans won WW2 and successfully holocausted every Jew on the planet, if they then developed genetic testing 100 years later and Third Reich scientists came back and said "ve have found zhat zhere is, on average, 0.5% Jewish DNA in ze German populace" you'd buy it if they then said "so, see? ve did not genocide anyvone! Zhey still exist!" ???

C'mon now.

 

[Lambchops]

I know you think you're promoting something which will end hate and divisions (though admitting we all have to become one race to get along sort of concedes my worldview...) and I used to have exactly the same view. Exactly.

Used to say that we all need to mix into one race for the sake of peace, etc.

But regardless of what you think you're advocating, or why - in actuality, you are advocating for genocide.

You want to see the distinctiveness of the white race in particular erased from this world. Many, many people feel the same way.

It is evil and it is wrong.

I'm not promoting anything at all.

I'm just saying that your grandchildren will be brown.

 

[Checkmite]

It just seems like the argument that society should base it on their values is the complete rejection of free speech.

The idea of free speech is that government cannot stop you from saying anything, or lock you up for what you say.

Private individuals and companies aren't merely "able" to reject, drown out, shut down, or refuse to accommodate others' speech when they disagree with it; the act of doing so, is itself a form of speech - expressing an opinion. Boycotts, whether of businesses, individuals, or groups, are speech.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

ST, you seem to confuse genetics and culture quite a bit.
In the case of Neanderthals, their culture would have died out in any case, replaced by something more modern over time. Genetics was the only way they could survive in some sense.
And the same is true today: only very naive groups of people think they can preserve a cultural status quo or, even more ludicrous, return to a early state. Cultural mixing and happens naturally, and with it comes genetic mixing; and even those who keep themselves apart are defined by the presence of the "other".
Nothing stays the same.

To your other point:
By the magic of Recombination, "genetic refinement" isn't lost when two people from different genepools have children: they are combined and inherited. The children are more, not less fit, thanks to the "refinement" of two sets of genotypes instead of just one.

More generally:
"genetic refinement" is a joke when it comes to consider the competition between organisms that evolve on the human timescale and parasites, microbes and viruses: humans aren't really in a competition with each other, we are in a race against everything that wants to weaken and kill us.
Most of the genetic revolution will focus on combing through genomes worldwide to find an individual with a special resistance, identify the relevant genes and splice them into patients - we will mix our genes even without reproduction.
And those who don't will be in a similar situation as the anti-vaxxers are today.

 

[Checkmite]

Btw, did you know that the Danish genome is small enough that if a Danish woman has a child with Nigerian man, for instance, she can actually be more closely related to her neighbor's child than to her own?

Did you know that this is equally probable if the Danish woman has a child with a Spanish man, or a Hungarian man, or a Scottish man?

 

[Belz...]

It's not peoples opinions that are the problem. The problem is that they are actively agitating for them in an attempt to implement them. They hold public rallies, are out pamphleting or otherwise distributing propaganda. That's the point where it goes from just holding hostile opinions and where they start to undermine the foundations of liberal-democracy.

Coercive measures should be used proportionally against to them in an attempt to restrict the harm they can cause, as opposed to just passively tolerating them even if they start gaining public support.

I get that, but who gets to decide, and how do we ensure that the next administration doesn't decide that _my_ speech and attempts to implement my ideas are not against the common good?

So that's first. Second, how about a guy like Alex Jones? Do you jail him for his nonsense?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

Got it so the genocide in Myanmar is a good thing because it won out in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Other than nazis, and I'm sure we're all sick of nazis, what suggestions do you have for ideas that need to be removed ?

Promoting the Rohingya genocide. I know it won in the marketplace of ideas but really that shouldn't be the be all and end all of morality.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If in the future people are being deported, it's probably because they're not citizens. Maybe it will be necessary to reconsider who is allowed to enter in the first place.

If people are being murdered, it's because the laws against murdering them aren't adequate or aren't being enforced adequately.

Neither issue is going to be solved by preventing people from discussing it over coffee.

If we believe we can truthfully say "the wrong" speech causes "the wrong" acts, then it follows "the wrong" thought leads to "the wrong" speech.* Are we going to make it a crime to THINK about murder next**?

Also, if we do make discussion of anything illegal how in hell do we pass our values on to future generations?

While I'm on the subject, how would this impact historical study? Should we ban books so no one can start to think about a world without ______? Should we ban references in entertainment, too?

If we're going to ban discussions of white nationalism, should we also ban discussions of other cultures? Should we close down blacks-only schools? Turn the native Americans out of their reservations and raze Chinatown?


*If so..."the right" speech should lead to "the right" acts; thus we've achieved balance and no changes are needed.

**AFAIK we're currently lacking the technology, but I'm sure with the right applications of money, political pressure and power we can make it a priority for R&D companies to find a way. Who needs a cure for cancer when we can start raking in tax dollars to incarcerate those who dare believe the WASP culture is worth keeping?

Should facebook even try to stem their roll in the Rohingya genocide or not, after all it is only discussion so it can't be bad by definition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too. Or, we need to shun both as just being sides of the same coin.

Of course logic like this is why we see lots of searches for international men's day around international women's day but no actual ones on the day it already exists.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/international-womens-day-google-mens-sexism-a8814501.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

Censorship isn't the way to go in any case. Governments should be remaining neutral.

It is society at large - "we the people" - who need to shun, de-platform, and deny space to toxic and terroristic ideologies.

Yep Facebook needs to give up their efforts to stem the genocide in Myanmar.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Already illegal in my part of the world.

How dare you censor ideas in that way!

 

[Belz...]

I know you think you're promoting something which will end hate and divisions (though admitting we all have to become one race to get along sort of concedes my worldview...) and I used to have exactly the same view. Exactly.

Considering your posts here, I don't believe you. I think you always held these views but have more recently found an excuse to support them openly.

The problem with those excuses is that you're forced to ignore a good part of the facts in order to maintain that support. Your general point, in essentially every thread you participate in, is that humans divide by race and so should be kept separate for their respective societies to live in harmony. Except that humans divide by everything. If they're racially homogeneous they'll find some other nonsense to fight over. The problem is not race; it's our tendency to divide. The good news is, there are ways to mitigate this problem, so segregation is not only pointless and ineffective, it's unnecessary.

You want to see the distinctiveness of the white race in particular erased from this world. Many, many people feel the same way.

And here we have further proof that your pretense of caring about other races and operating on facts evaporates. It's clear from the above that you just care about whites.

But explain to me: why would it matter if whites, or any other ethnic group for that matter, disappeared, so long as humanity and its cultures survive?

 

[Belz...]

Disagreed.

Otherwise, Neanderthals aren't extinct.

That's a good point.

They're really not.

 

[Arcade22]

I get that, but who gets to decide, and how do we ensure that the next administration doesn't decide that _my_ speech and attempts to implement my ideas are not against the common good?

Who gets to decide? Legislators enact laws, the police investigate alleged or suspected crimes, prosecutors file charges and the judiciary finally determines whether or not someone is guilty. Again, in a well-functioning liberal-democracy under the rule of law there's no single person who gets to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide whether something is against the law.

And ultimately it's not whether your opinion or political ideas are against the "common good". That's not the standard of acceptable conduct here. It's perfectly permissible to suggest and advocate poorly thought out and ultimately socially harmful policies. Edit: Just for emphasis: Liberal-Democracy is certainly not a perfect political system, as clearly demonstrated by the countless failed laws and regulations that have been enacted in them, but it's by far the best one there is.

It's those who agitate against the foundations of liberal-democracy that are the problem. I don't care how justified they believe they are, but the people who desire to bring about a totalitarian or authoritarian political system should not be accommodated.

So that's first. Second, how about a guy like Alex Jones? Do you jail him for his nonsense?

Considering his track record i wouldn't object to him being fined and his entire operation being shut down as well as prohibiting him from continuing spreading his brand of conspiratorial nonsense. You don't necessarily need to imprison people.

 

[Belz...]

Who gets to decide? Legislators enact laws, the police investigate alleged or suspected crimes, prosecutors file charges and the judiciary finally determines whether or not someone is guilty. Again, in a well-functioning liberal-democracy under the rule of law there's no single person who gets to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide whether something is against the law.

No but there are elected officials who represent those who elected them. When the shoe's on the other foot, or when the people at the top are out of control, they have an aparatus to shut you up. So my question is: how do you prevent that? You've already given them the tools to determine what constitutes bad speech and to stop it.

It's those who agitate against the foundations of liberal-democracy that are the problem. I don't care how justified they believe they are, but the people who desire to bring about a totalitarian or authoritarian political system should not be accommodated.

Ok then, who decides what the foundations of liberal-democracy are? Face it: a sizeable chunk of the country has a very different idea of what those are.

Considering his track record i wouldn't object to him being fined and his entire operation being shut down as well as prohibiting him from continuing spreading his brand of conspiratorial nonsense.

What if they find that, for instance, MSNBC regularily broadcasts erroneous information or undermines government functions by constantly nay-saying the President?

 

[BobTheCoward]

After viewing this board I've noticed a massive difference between the way Europeans think versus the way Americans think. The Europeans seem to be a hive mind. They are so predictable in nearly every category. They love shaming tactics and they will always toe the (BBC) line. Especially when it comes to hot-button issues (race relations, immigration, Islamification of Europe).
With Americans, you never know what they think until they said it.

I'm not sure if this is because of Europe's oppressive "hate speech" laws or because they are more ethnically similar and therefore are more likely to collectively share the same thoughts.

I had a specific exchange with the OP where he/she said this thread was also about government regulation.

 

[Cavemonster]

Suppose all the Christians in the US decided that Atheism was a bad idea and should be silenced?

Pretty much that exact thing has happened in many countries throughout history. But they never got there in the way you and others are suggesting this slippery slope might work.

I'll absolutely grant that there is a real risk in setting any precedent for greater power of government (or even in private entities with a lot of power). But when you get to the point of major dystopian predictions, I don't believe that this one small open door would be the thing they need and that the door being closed would stop them were everything else aligned.

I can't imagine a massive religious wave taking power over the country, wanting desperately to silence atheists, having the political power to pass such legislation but being thwarted by the lack of a vaguely similar (if you really squint) precedent.

I'm sure you can provide examples of countries changing boiled frog style bit by bit where expansions of power lead to negative consequences. I just don't see allowing neo Nazis to openly recruit as the bulwark against such a tide.

As I've said before, our free speech protection is already imperfect. We have had obscenity laws our whole history. Speech in private forums has always been subject to censorship. Saying no to racism is not going to be the thing that lets the flood water loose.

 

[Belz...]

Pretty much that exact thing has happened in many countries throughout history. But they never got there in the way you and others are suggesting this slippery slope might work.

I'll absolutely grant that there is a real risk in setting any precedent for greater power of government (or even in private entities with a lot of power). But when you get to the point of major dystopian predictions, I don't believe that this one small open door would be the thing they need and that the door being closed would stop them were everything else aligned.

I can't imagine a massive religious wave taking power over the country, wanting desperately to silence atheists, having the political power to pass such legislation but being thwarted by the lack of a vaguely similar (if you really squint) precedent.

I'm sure you can provide examples of countries changing boiled frog style bit by bit where expansions of power lead to negative consequences. I just don't see allowing neo Nazis to openly recruit as the bulwark against such a tide.

As I've said before, our free speech protection is already imperfect. We have had obscenity laws our whole history. Speech in private forums has always been subject to censorship. Saying no to racism is not going to be the thing that lets the flood water loose.

What you need to prevent hate speech is to make sure that the speech is very specifically described and that the law can't be changed easily to make it broader or more wobbly. It's not easy, but it's not impossible, either. It's just very risky.