I mean, some of what you call me "not being willing to go there" I'd call having a nuanced position. I try to spend time understanding why people I disagree with think or see things differently from me (some relevant posts linked below) - and that tends to make me more sympathetic to their views even if I maintain my disagreement with them. I also personally try to avoid unnecessarily antagonistic styles of communication. I don't think everyone should follow this example, the more aggressive style of people like Richard has it's place in opening up the conversation, but I try to take the value I can get from multiple perspectives and specify precisely where I agree and disagree in terms of values, facts and intuitions that differ rather than rejecting a person or their position outright. For example - with gender, rather than focusing on who has the "right" or "wrong" understanding of what it is, I try to point out the implicit definitions being used and then argue for why the definition I support is practically useful. But I do think that our differences rest on more than style - it seems like we have different views on the value of liberty vs. safety, the usefulness of identity characteristics for understanding someone's views (I think I focus relatively more on ideology) and the relative importance of intra vs. inter sexual variation for example.
Since you have deleted the note to which I made this reply, I am posting this here:
I believe, same as you do, that women being more assertive and responsible would solve a lot of problems in the world. I also believe, as Walt does, that most women today are either incapable or unwilling to take on any responsibilities. In any case, you cannot thrust it onto people and expect them to carry it, you have to inspire people into it.
In that vein, are you not willing to live your principles? Why the repeated refusal to come and have a real dialogue on the podcast? Why not take a real stand on your convictions, on this or any other issue, and use it as an opportunity to be the perfect example of what you advocate?
I must say that it looks very cowardly and hypocritical to keep on refusing. Almost like you expect your opinions to be sheltered from direct criticism and still be considered valid.
Almost as cowardly as posting anonymously online? I advocate not doing things you don’t want, regardless of social pressure, and in line with that I’m not going to go on his podcast when I don’t think it would be valuable simply because Walt is repeatedly requesting me to do so. If I were writing about him and then not responding to him or refusing to engage, id agree that’s not ideal conduct, but I have engaged with him in the comments of my post when I’ve referenced him. As for deleting a note… I only ever made a comment here so I’m not sure what got deleted or how.
I use my own name online so I am guessing that you are criticizing Walt’s anonymity. I won’t speak for him on this but have you considered that, instead of snarking about it, you could just ask him why he has decided to stay anonymous so far?
You say that you wont bend to social pressure to do something that you don’t want to do, but you are clearly deciding what you do or don’t want to do based on social pressure already- i.e. “I don’t think it will be valuable” presumably because your squeaky clean reputation might be challenged in the process- so that’s quite the redundant and meaningless platitude. If your opinions are actually coming from some real conviction then you can only gain more credibility defending them in a real conversation. The fact that you think it wouldn’t be valuable suggests that you only argue these opinions ostensibly, in your publication or in the comments, and don’t really believe in them.
So Arcto, what exactly is (or was) your position on the vaccine mandates during Covid? What was it initially when they were first being rolled out, and what is your position on them now?
I was very pro-vaccine because I saw them as a way out of the lockdowns and mandates.
I wasn’t opposed in principle to the vaccine mandates.
However. I turned against them when governments and ‘experts’ kept moving the goalposts, and new variants justified more restrictions. I realised that focusing on the ‘unvaccinated’ was just a divide and rule tactic.
I don’t oppose mandates for vaccines like MMR or polio. I don’t believe the Covid vaccine was better than it’s side effects when it came to small children, due to their low-risk from Covid, though for adults it was better to take it even with the variants, due to their higher-risk from Covid.
I’m still angry how anti-vax made the anti-lockdown and anti-mandate voices look like morons.
But I'm still not clear on your position, exactly.
You say you weren't opposed to the mandates in 'principle'.
OK, that's good to know. I appreciate your honesty there.
But were you also not opposed to them in practise? That's what I would really like to know.
So can you just clarify by answering this question directly - just a simple yes or no would suffice: Were you for the mandates as of March 2021? That was roughly a year after the first lockdowns were imposed, and before the first variants were discovered.
Sorry, I should clarify, I was not opposed to the VACCINE mandates in principle, though I was in practice because it didn't end the lockdowns and behaviour mandates (masks, rule of six, 2 metre rule, etcetra.)
I was generally opposed to lockdowns and behavioural mandates, unless the mandates were very mild, like in Sweden. Definitely anti-school closures.
I was opposed to the vaccine mandates in practice, because such policies did not end restrictions, they instead moved the goalpost and allowed governments to continue to claim more and more power, to ALSO continue with lockdowns and behaviour mandates, justified on the basis of 'variants'.
Thanks. But I'm still not clear on your position, exactly.
I don't want this come across as me being overly pedantic, but so long as you're open to the dialogue I'll keep asking - simply because I genuinenly want to know and I think it's important to clarify. And it's a simple question.
Think back to March 2021. The UK vaccine rollout had just started in December 2020. We were therefore 3 months into the first vaccine rollout. This was before any variants were discovered. And we were roughly a year into the pandemic itself, after the first wave of lockdowns were implemented globally in March 2020.
The promises therefore made, in March 2021, all across the board, were that the vaccines and the mandates would end COVID as a threat and therefore the need for any more lockdowns.
So were you for the mandates then, in practice, as of the end of March 2021? Simple yes or no.
That's all I really want to know. I'm not as interested in your position later, after the goalposts were shifted. I'm interested in your position on the mandates as of the end of March 2021, when the first promises were made to end the lockdowns, contingent on the success of the vaccine rollouts and calls for mandates at that time.
My view was that the lockdowns and mandates had lasted long enough and we needed to learn to live with the virus, even before the vaccines arrived.
The elderly needed to be shielded and some precautions needed to be taken. But overall, things should have returned to normal (the hard lockdowns never should have happened, but you asked for my view in early 2021.)
When it comes to lockdowns and mandates I’m the same as most on the DR, it’s just I don’t oppose the vaccine.
OK, all good to know. I understand your overall position now, but I'm still confused on your position regarding the very first round of vaccine mandates - specifically what your position was on them then, when they were first being rolled out.
This part here: "My view was that the lockdowns and mandates had lasted long enough and we needed to learn to live with the virus, even before the vaccines arrived."
The point here was the vaccine mandates specifically. The vaccine mandates were contigent on the vaccines first being introduced and made available, obviously. That wasn't until December 2020.
So how could you have been against the vaccine mandates before they were even introduced as an option? How could they have lasted "long enough", when the mandates weren't being floated until January 2021?
But OK, to make it simple: Am I then to take all of this that you were actually against the vaccine mandates the whole time, both in principle and in practise, when they were first rolled out as a solution to the pandemic, as of the end of March 2021?
By that point the vaccines were only 3 months into being rolled out, and before the subsequent variants were discovered and boosters introduced.
That’s true, but it just seemed like you were making some very similar critiques to those made by you and by Auron MacIntyre about the IDW being part of the ‘Neocon Cycle’ (which I agree with).
Basically that they’re trying to get mainstream respectability by watering down what you consider to be truly right-wing principles.
Auron and I argue that there is something driving the obvious reality of the left wing slippery slope. That’s why, as you notice in this podcast, it’s so consistent and why our predictions are so accurate. I go into detail about what drives it. But I don’t see how Auron and I are so obviously wrong about this.
But I felt you didn’t distinguish enough between what you called the ‘New Secular Right’ and the IDW.
Because there are some very big differences. People like Walt are not colorblind, accept HBD, reject the Civil Rights Regime, and don’t buy into liberal ‘end of history’ mythology.
As you know I have my criticisms of Walt, but I do think there needs to be a stronger distinction made. It’s also not true that Christian Conservatism represents the only form of right-wing politics and everything else is just ‘liberalism at the speed limit’ or ‘trying to appease liberals’. I mean, were the Nazi’s truly right-wing by your definition?
This really doesn’t really have anything to do with Christianity. We are trying to highlight a certain problem that drives the slippery slope that makes “back to the 1990s” totally impossible. The problem has to do with society’s animating ethos.
I still don’t understand this thing about the IDW. The IDW had nothing to do with my article. My article was about the need for an animating moral ethos in order not to immediately slide down the slippery slope. And yes, I DO think WB needs that. Everyone needs that.
Zero Seats is something people should support. Honestly, I think voting for Labour would actually result in some good policies. The centre-left can get away with doing more good stuff and let's be honest, they're just more competent.
'So I predict that in a few years the GOP position will be "moderate transgender" with bans on gender transitions for minors and focus on protecting women in single-sex spaces from trans women, but also having transgender Republican governors and congressmen.'
Which is why 'No Concessions' is so important.
I don't care how much you try to demoralise me, I'm not going to quit.
I feel confident that at least halve of heterosexual men are attracted to minors, but stating this is low status and opens you up to accusations of pedophilia.
LGBT has always vocally opposed any association with the normalization of pedophilia. The idea that the slope leads this way has been claimed for decades but has never born fruit.
Thanks, Kirsty, I appreciate that! But I feel like Walt and I have sufficiently hashed out our differences on the topics of consent and agency online already. I think our main differences are related to the value of liberty vs. safety, the relative importance of intra vs. inter sexual personality variation, our intuitions about how traumatized young people are and the right direction in which to change incentive structures. Given our differences in both values and intuitions here, I don’t think speaking live would be particularly productive, especially given the tendency that Walt has to fall back on identity characteristics and ad hominem attacks to discredit my positions. He has, at various points, implied that my nationality, profession, class or age are reasons to disregard my arguments. He’s also implied that I write for the validation of men. These are not the sorts of arguments that I accept as valid nor desire to engage with. We have a very different approach to how we present ourselves and engage online and I don’t plan on going on the podcast as a result of that.
read her comment above and pay close attention--this is what it looks like when a woman emits a primal disgust response indicating her interlocuter exists on the unfavorable side of a friend-enemy distinction based mostly on perceived status.
This kind of disgusted indifference exists on the other end of the horseshoe from hatred and admiration and the only proper response when you encounter it is to disengage.
I mean, some of what you call me "not being willing to go there" I'd call having a nuanced position. I try to spend time understanding why people I disagree with think or see things differently from me (some relevant posts linked below) - and that tends to make me more sympathetic to their views even if I maintain my disagreement with them. I also personally try to avoid unnecessarily antagonistic styles of communication. I don't think everyone should follow this example, the more aggressive style of people like Richard has it's place in opening up the conversation, but I try to take the value I can get from multiple perspectives and specify precisely where I agree and disagree in terms of values, facts and intuitions that differ rather than rejecting a person or their position outright. For example - with gender, rather than focusing on who has the "right" or "wrong" understanding of what it is, I try to point out the implicit definitions being used and then argue for why the definition I support is practically useful. But I do think that our differences rest on more than style - it seems like we have different views on the value of liberty vs. safety, the usefulness of identity characteristics for understanding someone's views (I think I focus relatively more on ideology) and the relative importance of intra vs. inter sexual variation for example.
Whose welfare are we talking about anyways: https://www.allcatsarefemale.com/p/whose-welfare-are-we-talking-about?lli=1
Shame! Shame! Shame!: https://www.allcatsarefemale.com/p/shame-shame-shame?lli=1
What is a woman?: https://www.allcatsarefemale.com/p/what-is-a-woman?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
S
You should come on my pod so we can discuss! Surely you can see the good folk of Hanania-adjacent Substack are crying out for it.
But either way, I've been sufficiently chastised by my circles and you can rest assured there will be no further pigtail pulling from Walter.
Since you have deleted the note to which I made this reply, I am posting this here:
I believe, same as you do, that women being more assertive and responsible would solve a lot of problems in the world. I also believe, as Walt does, that most women today are either incapable or unwilling to take on any responsibilities. In any case, you cannot thrust it onto people and expect them to carry it, you have to inspire people into it.
In that vein, are you not willing to live your principles? Why the repeated refusal to come and have a real dialogue on the podcast? Why not take a real stand on your convictions, on this or any other issue, and use it as an opportunity to be the perfect example of what you advocate?
I must say that it looks very cowardly and hypocritical to keep on refusing. Almost like you expect your opinions to be sheltered from direct criticism and still be considered valid.
Almost as cowardly as posting anonymously online? I advocate not doing things you don’t want, regardless of social pressure, and in line with that I’m not going to go on his podcast when I don’t think it would be valuable simply because Walt is repeatedly requesting me to do so. If I were writing about him and then not responding to him or refusing to engage, id agree that’s not ideal conduct, but I have engaged with him in the comments of my post when I’ve referenced him. As for deleting a note… I only ever made a comment here so I’m not sure what got deleted or how.
come on my pod and I'll doxx myself
I use my own name online so I am guessing that you are criticizing Walt’s anonymity. I won’t speak for him on this but have you considered that, instead of snarking about it, you could just ask him why he has decided to stay anonymous so far?
You say that you wont bend to social pressure to do something that you don’t want to do, but you are clearly deciding what you do or don’t want to do based on social pressure already- i.e. “I don’t think it will be valuable” presumably because your squeaky clean reputation might be challenged in the process- so that’s quite the redundant and meaningless platitude. If your opinions are actually coming from some real conviction then you can only gain more credibility defending them in a real conversation. The fact that you think it wouldn’t be valuable suggests that you only argue these opinions ostensibly, in your publication or in the comments, and don’t really believe in them.
So Arcto, what exactly is (or was) your position on the vaccine mandates during Covid? What was it initially when they were first being rolled out, and what is your position on them now?
I was very pro-vaccine because I saw them as a way out of the lockdowns and mandates.
I wasn’t opposed in principle to the vaccine mandates.
However. I turned against them when governments and ‘experts’ kept moving the goalposts, and new variants justified more restrictions. I realised that focusing on the ‘unvaccinated’ was just a divide and rule tactic.
I don’t oppose mandates for vaccines like MMR or polio. I don’t believe the Covid vaccine was better than it’s side effects when it came to small children, due to their low-risk from Covid, though for adults it was better to take it even with the variants, due to their higher-risk from Covid.
I’m still angry how anti-vax made the anti-lockdown and anti-mandate voices look like morons.
Thank you for the reply.
But I'm still not clear on your position, exactly.
You say you weren't opposed to the mandates in 'principle'.
OK, that's good to know. I appreciate your honesty there.
But were you also not opposed to them in practise? That's what I would really like to know.
So can you just clarify by answering this question directly - just a simple yes or no would suffice: Were you for the mandates as of March 2021? That was roughly a year after the first lockdowns were imposed, and before the first variants were discovered.
Cheers.
Sorry, I should clarify, I was not opposed to the VACCINE mandates in principle, though I was in practice because it didn't end the lockdowns and behaviour mandates (masks, rule of six, 2 metre rule, etcetra.)
I was generally opposed to lockdowns and behavioural mandates, unless the mandates were very mild, like in Sweden. Definitely anti-school closures.
I was opposed to the vaccine mandates in practice, because such policies did not end restrictions, they instead moved the goalpost and allowed governments to continue to claim more and more power, to ALSO continue with lockdowns and behaviour mandates, justified on the basis of 'variants'.
Thanks. But I'm still not clear on your position, exactly.
I don't want this come across as me being overly pedantic, but so long as you're open to the dialogue I'll keep asking - simply because I genuinenly want to know and I think it's important to clarify. And it's a simple question.
Think back to March 2021. The UK vaccine rollout had just started in December 2020. We were therefore 3 months into the first vaccine rollout. This was before any variants were discovered. And we were roughly a year into the pandemic itself, after the first wave of lockdowns were implemented globally in March 2020.
The promises therefore made, in March 2021, all across the board, were that the vaccines and the mandates would end COVID as a threat and therefore the need for any more lockdowns.
So were you for the mandates then, in practice, as of the end of March 2021? Simple yes or no.
That's all I really want to know. I'm not as interested in your position later, after the goalposts were shifted. I'm interested in your position on the mandates as of the end of March 2021, when the first promises were made to end the lockdowns, contingent on the success of the vaccine rollouts and calls for mandates at that time.
Can you clarify that bit?
Cheers,
My view was that the lockdowns and mandates had lasted long enough and we needed to learn to live with the virus, even before the vaccines arrived.
The elderly needed to be shielded and some precautions needed to be taken. But overall, things should have returned to normal (the hard lockdowns never should have happened, but you asked for my view in early 2021.)
When it comes to lockdowns and mandates I’m the same as most on the DR, it’s just I don’t oppose the vaccine.
OK, all good to know. I understand your overall position now, but I'm still confused on your position regarding the very first round of vaccine mandates - specifically what your position was on them then, when they were first being rolled out.
This part here: "My view was that the lockdowns and mandates had lasted long enough and we needed to learn to live with the virus, even before the vaccines arrived."
The point here was the vaccine mandates specifically. The vaccine mandates were contigent on the vaccines first being introduced and made available, obviously. That wasn't until December 2020.
So how could you have been against the vaccine mandates before they were even introduced as an option? How could they have lasted "long enough", when the mandates weren't being floated until January 2021?
But OK, to make it simple: Am I then to take all of this that you were actually against the vaccine mandates the whole time, both in principle and in practise, when they were first rolled out as a solution to the pandemic, as of the end of March 2021?
By that point the vaccines were only 3 months into being rolled out, and before the subsequent variants were discovered and boosters introduced.
Cheers.
I have no idea what AngloFuturist is talking about. I never mentioned the IDW in my article.
That’s true, but it just seemed like you were making some very similar critiques to those made by you and by Auron MacIntyre about the IDW being part of the ‘Neocon Cycle’ (which I agree with).
Basically that they’re trying to get mainstream respectability by watering down what you consider to be truly right-wing principles.
Auron and I argue that there is something driving the obvious reality of the left wing slippery slope. That’s why, as you notice in this podcast, it’s so consistent and why our predictions are so accurate. I go into detail about what drives it. But I don’t see how Auron and I are so obviously wrong about this.
But I felt you didn’t distinguish enough between what you called the ‘New Secular Right’ and the IDW.
Because there are some very big differences. People like Walt are not colorblind, accept HBD, reject the Civil Rights Regime, and don’t buy into liberal ‘end of history’ mythology.
As you know I have my criticisms of Walt, but I do think there needs to be a stronger distinction made. It’s also not true that Christian Conservatism represents the only form of right-wing politics and everything else is just ‘liberalism at the speed limit’ or ‘trying to appease liberals’. I mean, were the Nazi’s truly right-wing by your definition?
This really doesn’t really have anything to do with Christianity. We are trying to highlight a certain problem that drives the slippery slope that makes “back to the 1990s” totally impossible. The problem has to do with society’s animating ethos.
So, is the position that Walt represents similar to the IDW in your eyes or is it not?
I still don’t understand this thing about the IDW. The IDW had nothing to do with my article. My article was about the need for an animating moral ethos in order not to immediately slide down the slippery slope. And yes, I DO think WB needs that. Everyone needs that.
Zero Seats is something people should support. Honestly, I think voting for Labour would actually result in some good policies. The centre-left can get away with doing more good stuff and let's be honest, they're just more competent.
'So I predict that in a few years the GOP position will be "moderate transgender" with bans on gender transitions for minors and focus on protecting women in single-sex spaces from trans women, but also having transgender Republican governors and congressmen.'
Which is why 'No Concessions' is so important.
I don't care how much you try to demoralise me, I'm not going to quit.
https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/why-i-wont-stop-talking-about-gay
https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/where-the-elite-human-capital-ehc
https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/how-to-resist-the-neocon-cycle
Yes, and I’m extremely critical of how representative democracy gives power to extremists:
https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/why-representative-democracy-is-ideal
I feel confident that at least halve of heterosexual men are attracted to minors, but stating this is low status and opens you up to accusations of pedophilia.
LGBT has always vocally opposed any association with the normalization of pedophilia. The idea that the slope leads this way has been claimed for decades but has never born fruit.
Thanks, Kirsty, I appreciate that! But I feel like Walt and I have sufficiently hashed out our differences on the topics of consent and agency online already. I think our main differences are related to the value of liberty vs. safety, the relative importance of intra vs. inter sexual personality variation, our intuitions about how traumatized young people are and the right direction in which to change incentive structures. Given our differences in both values and intuitions here, I don’t think speaking live would be particularly productive, especially given the tendency that Walt has to fall back on identity characteristics and ad hominem attacks to discredit my positions. He has, at various points, implied that my nationality, profession, class or age are reasons to disregard my arguments. He’s also implied that I write for the validation of men. These are not the sorts of arguments that I accept as valid nor desire to engage with. We have a very different approach to how we present ourselves and engage online and I don’t plan on going on the podcast as a result of that.
at least if Substack doesn't work out you can rest assured of an amazing future in HR
Pulling her pigtails again I see Walt... 😉
We all know you have feelings for her, you're just worried the other boys will tease you.
lol no
read her comment above and pay close attention--this is what it looks like when a woman emits a primal disgust response indicating her interlocuter exists on the unfavorable side of a friend-enemy distinction based mostly on perceived status.
This kind of disgusted indifference exists on the other end of the horseshoe from hatred and admiration and the only proper response when you encounter it is to disengage.
Yeah it did seem a bit slimy, passive-aggressive...
Typical female behaviour.
This is why I like tomboys.
Another good reason to oppose trans ideology!