re: Gavin McInnes: Alt-right v. Alt-Lite

It's probably the most cogent argument against that mindset. What, exactly, constituents "white"?

/pol/ argues about it daily

quote:

---

They're not doing those things just because they embraced Western culture, if they did. Their superior genetics make them capable of those things, of higher things in general.

---

You were saying?

If genetics, rather than culture and values, were the ultimate predictor of outcomes, why the stark contrast between North and South Korea?

quote:

---

i agree with you, fwiw

i am also a mutt and see people who want to "preserve whiteness" not really understanding what "white" is.

---

I'm not talking about some "master race" bullshite.
If you marry someone significantly less intelligent than you, what kind of children will you produce?
Then what if that child mates with someone significantly less intelligent than them? What will they produce?
I don't want eugenics; I'm just not going to pretend that 2+1=4

How much do you know about mimetic conflict? Rene Girard?

You're all doing a terrible job understanding uway's argument let alone refuting it.

He's claiming that intelligence is a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient one. So according to him Asians are capable of picking up "Western culture" because they have high IQs but other groups (presumably blacks and mestizos) are incapable. But since capable doesn't mean inevitable they can still opt for unsuccessful models like Juche etc.

This position is untenable, but not because North and South Korea exist. It's untenable because of the Flynn effect. Even the pioneer funded estimates of ethnic IQ gaps aren't as wide as the gap between the general population now and when IQ was first developed a century ago. So this position doesn't stand unless "Western culture" is a very recent development, which it definitely isn't.

quote:

---

This position is untenable, but not because North and South Korea exist. It's untenable because of the Flynn effect.

---

It's also untenable because it pretends that Western culture which grew out of the Enlightenment era was somehow a priori. Which I think adds to your point.

quote:

---

You're all doing a terrible job understanding uway's argument let alone refuting it.

He's claiming that intelligence is a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient one. So according to him Asians can pick up "Western culture" because they have high IQs but other groups (presumably blacks and mestizos) are incapable. But since capable doesn't mean inevitable they can still opt for unsuccessful models like Juche etc.

This position is untenable, but not because North and South Korea exist. It's untenable because of the Flynn effect. Even the pioneer funded estimates of ethnic IQ gaps aren't as wide as the gap between the general population now and when IQ was first developed a century ago. So this position doesn't stand unless "Western culture" is a very recent development, which it definitely isn't.

---

Not really but at least you're not terribly obtuse as some of these white knights are.

Western culture, if good for mankind, is good for mestizos and blacks. That doesn't mean it's good for people with significantly different genetic makeups (from evolving for millennia in significantly different environments) to live together, or that we can or should expect good results from pushing our ideas of culture and civilization on others.

I think the evidence shows that this mixing can work fine at the margins, if the newcomers to the culture embrace it or respectfully keep to themselves with their own culture, but that it leads to conflict in large doses.
And now we have the toxic combination of declining belief in our own culture and importation of large immigrant populations with strong belief in a vastly inferior culture.
They're going to adopt Western consumerism to a great extent but they aren't going to abandon their own culture for this weak-kneed nonsense that remains of ours.

quote:

---

Who said it was the ultimate predictor of anything?

---

Ultimate predictor was my own wording, but regardless you have centered your position around the roll genetics play in population outcomes:

quote:

---

They're not doing those things just because they embraced Western culture, if they did. Their superior genetics make them capable of those things, of higher things in general.

---

I am refuting this by saying that regardless of mean population IQ (to a point) the embracing of western culture, namely sovereignty of the individual, property rights, equality under the law, etc... will be the largest predictor of an outcome that looks more like South Korea or Japan, rather than Myanmar or Cambodia.

quote:

---

they do this to attack Western culture which is why i don't mind claiming that i value and will defend Western culture

---

I hate the "Whataboutism" defense discussion about cultures that invariably comes up.

quote:

---

it pretends that Western culture which grew out of the Enlightenment era was somehow a priori.

---

i'm not pretending this

the Scientific Method and the promotion of discovery through experiment, trial, and error is the primary driver of development and that's a large part of "Western culture" and why it has kept evolving (as opposed to some stationary idea of "culture" that is more conservative in nature). progressives are actually very conservative in their view of culture, as they see these cultures as static and in need of preservation. they just see "progress" in forcing them all together and hoping that some master culture emerges that takes the best from each culture (which is idiotic and borderline insane, given their treatment of cultures and defense of protecting inferior cultures)

i don't see "Western culture" as this static thing that came out of magic, or that every model of the culture was amazing and great. the label is just used for simplicity, also, as i really defend some major tenets of "Western culture" more than this belief in a singular version of culture itself. you can support or defend any alleged culture, as long as it protects/values property rights, promotes a secular society, relies on science, protects fundamental freedoms, etc.

this means i don't totally reject the ideas of most progressives or communists, as there is overlap with many in promoting secular societies and science. however, their rejection of protecting property and their attack on fundamental freedoms is untenable to me. now if you compare my ideals to most conservative-Muslim cultures? almost no overlap. they in large number support non-secular societies, have a very limited concept of rights, and often even do not have similar valuations of property. we're not going to agree on much

quote:

---

I hate the "Whataboutism" defense discussion about cultures that invariably comes up.

---

like constant references to terrible past policies like colonialism or slavery?