I think that’s an overstatement. It’s not ‘marketing before intellectual honesty’ to point out that we should be extra-wary about analyses or materials by ideologues for whom the results are part of their identity (Sailer repeatedly talks about white identity and how it’s a shame there’s no White-with-a-capital-w solidarity in the way there’s Black-with-a-capital-b solidarity) which is just one of the many deductive fallacies with perfectly valid statistical justification for using, or that quoting approvingly such people will ceteris paribus put off other people with extra reason to distrust such people.
I expect that if you put more effort into searching than I did before posting my question, you will find material that satisfies you but which for which I reject your characterization. I would rather have the material than the bald assertion.
So… you’re trying to trap me or something? In that case, let me ask you: what makes you think that Sailer does not think that a White identity would be a good thing?
Trap? WTF? I just want you to say something concrete, rather than your nebulous slander. I don’t think it will resolve our difference, but I think it is more fair to Sailer and to the reader.
Reading Sailer leads me to my beliefs about him. In particular, paying attention to positive and normative claims. I’m sorry that you can’t imagine that. As I said, before my first comment, I did a couple of searches and skimmed 10 or 20 articles. If he only expresses this opinion every three years, maybe it wouldn’t come up in a search like that.
Reading Sailer leads me to my beliefs about him. In particular, paying attention to positive and normative claims.
That’s a very high standard, since not everyone makes a clear and simple thesis statement which can be easily found. But it’s implicit to various degrees in much of what he writes. So if you read Sailer’s review of a book literally titled White Identity (first useful hit for “steve sailer white identity”), does it not look exactly like what I said? Here’s some excerpts:
The next half millennium is likely to go worse for whites relative to the Chinese unless we modernize our mindsets on race. Taylor continues summarizing the current orthodoxy:
“It thus makes no difference if a neighborhood or nation becomes non-white or if white children marry outside their race. Whites have no valid group interests, so it is illegitimate for them to attempt to organize as whites. Given the past crimes of whites, any expression of racial pride is wrong. The displacement of whites by non-whites through immigration will strengthen the United States.”
As you can see, today’s PC party line is a farrago of empirical and normative assertions
...What are the prospects for white identity politics emerging as a self-conscious, public force in America? I’d guess: not good. This is not to say that white identity politics won’t continue to manifest itself de facto. We saw that, for example, with the Tea Parties and the emergence of an overwhelmingly white movement to protect Medicare in 2009. But, white people aren’t supposed to say: we’re doing this “to promote the general welfare” of “ourselves and our posterity” (to quote the Constitution’s Preamble). Whites aren’t supposed to say that—and they don’t like to, either.
...In other words, what historian Hugh Davis Graham called attention to in the title of his 2002 book, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America, can’t go on forever. The mounting “racial ratio” of nonwhite beneficiaries to white benefactors means the system will inevitably break down under the weight of numbers. At that point, white consciousness could be forced into existence. In the meantime, we can all be thankful that Jared Taylor has been thinking ahead.
Every line is consistent with the claim that a White identity does not exist and its existence would be good, from the complete absence of any criticism of Taylor to the first mention of Chinese competition requiring a coordinated White response to invocation of sacred scripture (the Constitution) to the claim that disaster will reveal the problems of a lack of a White identity, usher it in, and Taylor’s work will have been meritorious for helping usher it in.
First, I would like to correct an ambiguity from the very beginning of this thread. I did not mean to dispute that Sailer says (a rhetoric of) white solidarity does not exist, only to dispute that he would like to bring it into existence. I’m not sure this made a difference to the conversation, though.
I concede that Sailer thinks white solidarity would be an improvement over the status quo.
Of course that was one of the articles I looked at before posting and rejected on skimming. I also find your quotes utterly unconvincing and dispute your summary. (The part about Taylor thinking ahead is striking, though I think not so relevant.) I think this represents a very large disagreement between us. I guess you said that it takes years of reading Sailer to discern his beliefs. If our years of reading him lead to disagreements, it seems hard to address.
What changed my mind was his comparison between his proposal and Taylor’s. It is put entirely in terms of potential as a tool to limit immigration. He does link to a debate he had with Taylor years earlier, where he puts more emphasis on principles and the general running of society.
What changed my mind was his comparison between his proposal and Taylor’s. It is put entirely in terms of potential as a tool to limit immigration. He does link to a debate he had with Taylor years earlier, where he puts more emphasis on principles and the general running of society.
A debate where he says that Taylor is morally right but that citizenism is more practical and more salable; repeatedly he says that citizenism is a pragmatic attack on his foes:
Mr. Taylor contends that “duty does not calculate the odds of success” but I do. And I’m betting on citizenism, not white nationalism, as the principle that could save America.
If Sailer actually accepts ‘citizenism’, then why this talk of ‘odds of success’ or ‘betting’? If he believed it, then the chance of success is merely a good extra thing: “I’m right and I’m more likely to succeed”. His arguments are taking the form of “you’re right, but I’m more likely to succeed”.
Priors: I haven’t heard of either Taylor or Sailor before (except possibly in passing). I dislike “citizenism” (insofar as I understand what that means before reading this) almost as much as (though slightly less than) “white nationalism”. I am also slightly more swayed by gwern’s argument than Douglas’s so far, though I remain quite uncertain.
Upon reading the essay linked and this previous one, but nothing else, my impression is that Sailor’s main focus is on distinguishing “nationalism” and “tribalism” (my terms for interpreting his ideas), more or less. By nationalism he means a system based on laws designed to facilitate and encourage altruism and cooperation with strangers, which he claims emerged in Western Europe, and is carried on mostly by whites. By tribalism he means a system based on supporting and dealing with primarily your extended family, and by extension members of your race. He opposes “white nationalism” insofar as he believes it’s “tribalist” and anti-individualistic and would harness whites to serve the racial group (much as he claims black solidarity, etc., does for other races), which would be harmful. He does seem to believe that whites are broadly superior to black and Latinos, but seems to believe this difference is unimportant compared to the paramount goal of promoting the welfare of current US citizens and ensuring that the “nationalism” (using the definition I mentioned above) remains the dominant force.
So, posteriors: I find that his arguments suck, and my opinion of “citizenism” has not improved and possibly became worse (which is beside the point). However, judging by those two posts alone, it does seem like Sailor genuinely holds “citizenism” to be paramount and is in weak opposition to some forms of white nationalism, insofar as that would encourage whites to put group interests ahead of individual and general cooperation interests; that said, he probably believes that whites are genuinely superior and because of this has significant moral sympathy for white nationalist positions despite believing a focus on racial solidarity may be harmful. Although I’m not sure if he cares about improving the lives of non-white Americans or sees that as merely a neutral or slightly beneficial side-effect of improving the lives of white Americans.
In all fairness, “loyalty” and “identity” are core moral foundations for “conservative” or “right-wing” politics, and Sailer is often cited as a member of the so-called “alt-right”. “Race”, i.e. skin color, is a very salient feature which tends to correlate (at least in the United States; we would see very different results in such places as Brazil) with the kind of cultural distinctiveness that tends to create and sustain ingroup biases. So, it’s not very surprising that the ‘alt-right’ would be biased towards this kind of ingroup solidarity.
“Black solidarity” is indeed harder to explain. It may reflect a morally conservative attitude on the part of some blacks; it may be proof that left-wing folks are anything but immune to ingroup bias, at least in some circumstances; or it may be that what we take to be “black solidarity” does not reflect a true ingroup in the moral and cognitive sense, but rather a mere coalition or bloc based on shared interests, which is a fairly common feature in modern politics.
“Black solidarity” is indeed harder to explain. It may reflect a morally conservative attitude on the part of some blacks; it may be proof that left-wing folks are anything but immune to ingroup bias, at least in some circumstances; or it may be that what we take to be “black solidarity” does not reflect a true ingroup in the moral and cognitive sense, but a mere coalition or bloc based on shared interests, which is a fairly common feature in modern politics.
I don’t think it’s that hard to explain. A sufficient explanation would simply be the salience of skin color leading to stereotypes and action based on it: for example, during slavery, even if all sorts of ethnic groups with dark skin had nothing at all in common with each other it would still be a good idea to form a ‘Black’ identity just to coordinate opposition to slavery; if they were going to be treated as a single homogenous group, then they might as well strive to make themselves a homogenous group as far as fighting the treatment goes. (Alternate example: if there were pending legislation to execute everyone with brown eyes and you have brown eyes, you’d better quickly find all your fellow brown-eyes and hand all your money to a brown-eyed organization to fight this legislation in every way possible.)
Such a ‘reaction’ explanation of group identity also handily explains observed voting patterns of blacks for Democrats in shares upwards of 70 or 80% - it may not so much be that they really find themselves in agreement with the Democratic platform in every respect, it’s just that black-related issues are really important to them. IIRC, blacks tend to strongly disagree with the general Democratic population on some issues like gay marriage.
(Of course, I could be wrong about all of this; maybe it’s already been investigated thoroughly and these explanations debunked. It’s not an area I read much in.)
Yes, that’s essentially what I mean by “shared interests”. In this case, the lack of white “solidarity” (in a political sense) is easily explained by the observation that whites’ political interests are not at all homogenous.
Of course, if policy is allowed to discriminate among races (and this is in fact the case) that might create homogenous interests where none existed before; however, my guess is that some minorities would still coalesce along race-based lines even if such policies weren’t a factor.
Yes, that’s essentially what I mean by “shared interests”.
I thought you meant something more like pre-existing conditions or contexts, for example, the shared interest of everyone who holds fixed debt in keeping inflation low or everyone who owns land on secure property rights.
What I thought was interesting and different about the black example was that this ‘shared interest’ could be forced on groups that previously shared no interests by a sufficiently powerful group which decides to treat the previously different groups as the same group—in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lukeprog put marketing before intellectual honesty before.
I think that’s an overstatement. It’s not ‘marketing before intellectual honesty’ to point out that we should be extra-wary about analyses or materials by ideologues for whom the results are part of their identity (Sailer repeatedly talks about white identity and how it’s a shame there’s no White-with-a-capital-w solidarity in the way there’s Black-with-a-capital-b solidarity) which is just one of the many deductive fallacies with perfectly valid statistical justification for using, or that quoting approvingly such people will ceteris paribus put off other people with extra reason to distrust such people.
Where?
Is that a genuine question? Because if you read his blog and longer articles for a few years, I don’t see how anyone could differ about that.
I expect that if you put more effort into searching than I did before posting my question, you will find material that satisfies you but which for which I reject your characterization. I would rather have the material than the bald assertion.
So… you’re trying to trap me or something? In that case, let me ask you: what makes you think that Sailer does not think that a White identity would be a good thing?
Trap? WTF? I just want you to say something concrete, rather than your nebulous slander. I don’t think it will resolve our difference, but I think it is more fair to Sailer and to the reader.
Reading Sailer leads me to my beliefs about him. In particular, paying attention to positive and normative claims. I’m sorry that you can’t imagine that. As I said, before my first comment, I did a couple of searches and skimmed 10 or 20 articles. If he only expresses this opinion every three years, maybe it wouldn’t come up in a search like that.
That’s a very high standard, since not everyone makes a clear and simple thesis statement which can be easily found. But it’s implicit to various degrees in much of what he writes. So if you read Sailer’s review of a book literally titled White Identity (first useful hit for “steve sailer white identity”), does it not look exactly like what I said? Here’s some excerpts:
Every line is consistent with the claim that a White identity does not exist and its existence would be good, from the complete absence of any criticism of Taylor to the first mention of Chinese competition requiring a coordinated White response to invocation of sacred scripture (the Constitution) to the claim that disaster will reveal the problems of a lack of a White identity, usher it in, and Taylor’s work will have been meritorious for helping usher it in.
First, I would like to correct an ambiguity from the very beginning of this thread. I did not mean to dispute that Sailer says (a rhetoric of) white solidarity does not exist, only to dispute that he would like to bring it into existence. I’m not sure this made a difference to the conversation, though.
I concede that Sailer thinks white solidarity would be an improvement over the status quo.
Of course that was one of the articles I looked at before posting and rejected on skimming. I also find your quotes utterly unconvincing and dispute your summary. (The part about Taylor thinking ahead is striking, though I think not so relevant.)
I think this represents a very large disagreement between us. I guess you said that it takes years of reading Sailer to discern his beliefs. If our years of reading him lead to disagreements, it seems hard to address.
What changed my mind was his comparison between his proposal and Taylor’s. It is put entirely in terms of potential as a tool to limit immigration. He does link to a debate he had with Taylor years earlier, where he puts more emphasis on principles and the general running of society.
A debate where he says that Taylor is morally right but that citizenism is more practical and more salable; repeatedly he says that citizenism is a pragmatic attack on his foes:
If Sailer actually accepts ‘citizenism’, then why this talk of ‘odds of success’ or ‘betting’? If he believed it, then the chance of success is merely a good extra thing: “I’m right and I’m more likely to succeed”. His arguments are taking the form of “you’re right, but I’m more likely to succeed”.
I invite the reader to actually read the debate and see which of those forms his arguments take.
Priors: I haven’t heard of either Taylor or Sailor before (except possibly in passing). I dislike “citizenism” (insofar as I understand what that means before reading this) almost as much as (though slightly less than) “white nationalism”. I am also slightly more swayed by gwern’s argument than Douglas’s so far, though I remain quite uncertain.
Upon reading the essay linked and this previous one, but nothing else, my impression is that Sailor’s main focus is on distinguishing “nationalism” and “tribalism” (my terms for interpreting his ideas), more or less. By nationalism he means a system based on laws designed to facilitate and encourage altruism and cooperation with strangers, which he claims emerged in Western Europe, and is carried on mostly by whites. By tribalism he means a system based on supporting and dealing with primarily your extended family, and by extension members of your race. He opposes “white nationalism” insofar as he believes it’s “tribalist” and anti-individualistic and would harness whites to serve the racial group (much as he claims black solidarity, etc., does for other races), which would be harmful. He does seem to believe that whites are broadly superior to black and Latinos, but seems to believe this difference is unimportant compared to the paramount goal of promoting the welfare of current US citizens and ensuring that the “nationalism” (using the definition I mentioned above) remains the dominant force.
So, posteriors: I find that his arguments suck, and my opinion of “citizenism” has not improved and possibly became worse (which is beside the point). However, judging by those two posts alone, it does seem like Sailor genuinely holds “citizenism” to be paramount and is in weak opposition to some forms of white nationalism, insofar as that would encourage whites to put group interests ahead of individual and general cooperation interests; that said, he probably believes that whites are genuinely superior and because of this has significant moral sympathy for white nationalist positions despite believing a focus on racial solidarity may be harmful. Although I’m not sure if he cares about improving the lives of non-white Americans or sees that as merely a neutral or slightly beneficial side-effect of improving the lives of white Americans.
I admire your ability to read and review the article in a sane way, in the middle of mindkilling maelstrom.
In all fairness, “loyalty” and “identity” are core moral foundations for “conservative” or “right-wing” politics, and Sailer is often cited as a member of the so-called “alt-right”. “Race”, i.e. skin color, is a very salient feature which tends to correlate (at least in the United States; we would see very different results in such places as Brazil) with the kind of cultural distinctiveness that tends to create and sustain ingroup biases. So, it’s not very surprising that the ‘alt-right’ would be biased towards this kind of ingroup solidarity.
“Black solidarity” is indeed harder to explain. It may reflect a morally conservative attitude on the part of some blacks; it may be proof that left-wing folks are anything but immune to ingroup bias, at least in some circumstances; or it may be that what we take to be “black solidarity” does not reflect a true ingroup in the moral and cognitive sense, but rather a mere coalition or bloc based on shared interests, which is a fairly common feature in modern politics.
I don’t think it’s that hard to explain. A sufficient explanation would simply be the salience of skin color leading to stereotypes and action based on it: for example, during slavery, even if all sorts of ethnic groups with dark skin had nothing at all in common with each other it would still be a good idea to form a ‘Black’ identity just to coordinate opposition to slavery; if they were going to be treated as a single homogenous group, then they might as well strive to make themselves a homogenous group as far as fighting the treatment goes. (Alternate example: if there were pending legislation to execute everyone with brown eyes and you have brown eyes, you’d better quickly find all your fellow brown-eyes and hand all your money to a brown-eyed organization to fight this legislation in every way possible.)
Such a ‘reaction’ explanation of group identity also handily explains observed voting patterns of blacks for Democrats in shares upwards of 70 or 80% - it may not so much be that they really find themselves in agreement with the Democratic platform in every respect, it’s just that black-related issues are really important to them. IIRC, blacks tend to strongly disagree with the general Democratic population on some issues like gay marriage.
(Of course, I could be wrong about all of this; maybe it’s already been investigated thoroughly and these explanations debunked. It’s not an area I read much in.)
Yes, that’s essentially what I mean by “shared interests”. In this case, the lack of white “solidarity” (in a political sense) is easily explained by the observation that whites’ political interests are not at all homogenous.
Of course, if policy is allowed to discriminate among races (and this is in fact the case) that might create homogenous interests where none existed before; however, my guess is that some minorities would still coalesce along race-based lines even if such policies weren’t a factor.
I thought you meant something more like pre-existing conditions or contexts, for example, the shared interest of everyone who holds fixed debt in keeping inflation low or everyone who owns land on secure property rights.
What I thought was interesting and different about the black example was that this ‘shared interest’ could be forced on groups that previously shared no interests by a sufficiently powerful group which decides to treat the previously different groups as the same group—in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s not just that. Colin Powell is considered an African American despite being pale-skinned.