Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Bugposting

April 12, 2024 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

12:45

Bugposting

Why are liberals on the side of the bugs? CRT explained: https://www.lotuseaters.com/premium-the-origin-of-intersectionality-16-10-2021

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You may have noticed a weird kind of pathological altruism that comes from a specific kind of person that has manifested itself into the internet meme of bug posting.
	In April of 2019, Vox published an article by Mattie Inglesius called The Great Awokening, in which he documented a particular kind of change in left-wing politics in the United States.
	In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter.
	Social media, he notes, facilitated a dramatic shift in liberal ideology.
	Anyone who has been following this ideology for any amount of time will notice that the impetus for this drive was from woke activist journalists writing in left-wing news outlets as the wellspring from which this ideology was disseminated.
	But the source of the ideology itself is from critical race theory, something I have documented in detail on lotuses.com.
	I'll leave a link in the description for anyone who wants to know more.
	The internal logic of critical race theory, what we call intersectionality or wokeness, works in tandem with any other identity group and within the existing logic of liberal civil rights theory.
	The drive for the equality of recognition of rights opens up the questions of intersecting identities in a way which liberal civil rights law did not anticipate.
	With the questions of liberty sufficiently answered, the questions of equality were used as a blade and driven by communists into the soft parts that liberals had no defence against.
	If people are, in fact, all the same, and there are disparate outcomes between the races, then the only explanation for this difference can come from inherent racial biases and unfair discrimination from within the liberals themselves and the system that they run.
	Therefore, anti-discrimination efforts were turned against the system of law itself and the ideology that justified it, using the very values that that ideology had used to justify itself.
	Against this attack, there was of course no liberal defence.
	And this attack on the consequences of civil rights law collapsed the legitimacy of the equality pillar of liberal ideology very quickly, and made discrimination and inequality the primary concerns of liberals everywhere.
	We are not equal.
	This was demonstrated.
	Therefore, liberals, to save liberalism, have to make that the primary concern.
	This is how wokeness conquered liberalism from within and turned the liberals woke.
	It cast into doubt one of the core premises of liberalism itself and suggested that if that wasn't true, the rest of it isn't true.
	Matt observes that pollsters began to see a rapid, sustained change.
	White Democrats started suddenly expressing dramatically higher levels of concern about racial inequality and discrimination while showing greater enthusiasm for racial diversity and immigration.
	America's liberals cannot help it.
	They are placed on the horns of a dilemma.
	On one hand, they could either abandon liberalism and perhaps be forced to admit that in fact we are not all the same, which would imply that instead we are all different, and that these differences might actually aggregate in groups and therefore maybe we could expect group differences in outcomes.
	Or, on the other hand, they could focus on the groups who are perceived to have unequal outcomes with the others and attempt to artificially improve their status through their own actions to counteract the mysterious and elusive discrimination which exists somewhere in the system.
	America's liberals, of course, chose the latter.
	They are, after all, liberals.
	This is the only moral system that they know, and to admit that it is based on false premises would be to say that they know nothing of morality and have no basis from which to make moral judgments.
	It opens up the possibility that any judgments that they had made so far were not just wrong, but immoral themselves, and they have hitherto spent their entire lives as bad people.
	Of course they chose the latter.
	America's liberals, therefore, are now on a mission to find bias, prejudice and discrimination of any form, wherever they might be found, and root them out.
	If they don't, they are forced to admit that liberalism is untrue and step into that moral chasm that is opening up before them.
	This is what informs their insane crusading zeal against otherwise normal and healthy behaviours.
	They are going to lose all of their moral authority and they are very, very afraid of it.
	In 2019, Tablet magazine published an article entitled America's White Saviours, in which they wrote, Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal.
	In one especially telling example of the broader trend, white liberals recently became the only demographic group in America to display a pro-out-group bias, meaning that among all the different groups surveyed, white liberals were the only one that expressed a preference for other racial and ethnic communities above their own.
	We can understand precisely why they do this, and the otherwise mystifying behaviour of woke activists acting against their own interest becomes clear, as does why this has developed into what is described as a racial outgroup preference.
	Where other racial groups show a relatively consistent preference for people who are like them, white liberals display a severely inverted out-group preference.
	And it's also noted that this is a very recent development.
	However, I believe that this crusading drive for equality is only one part of the phenomenon.
	The other half is the way in which liberalism builds its moral community.
	Liberalism privileges the rational side of the rational animal that is man, locating its justification for existence in man's capacity to reason.
	Sentience becomes the standard from which liberalism constructs its moral decision-making machinery, built entirely around its ability to reason.
	Liberals therefore bestow personhood on anyone or anything with the ability to rationally consent to something and withdraw it from things that can't, which is why a few years back, actor James Franco had a particularly uncomfortable conversation with a professor who deemed unborn babies as non-people and therefore declared that there was no moral weight to abortion.
	Let's talk about it.
	Alright, so in some of my work I defend a liberal position about early abortion.
	So I defend the view that there's nothing morally bad about early abortion.
	So a lot of people think, well, it's permissible to have an abortion, but something bad happens when the fetus dies.
	And I think if a fetus hasn't ever been conscious, it hasn't ever had any experiences, and we abort it at that stage that actually nothing morally bad happens.
	And this view might seem unattractive because it might seem that it dictates a cold attitude towards all early fetuses.
	But what I think is that actually, among early fetuses, there are two very different kinds of beings.
	So James, when you were an early fetus, and Elliot, when you were an early fetus.
	All of us, I think that we already did have moral status then, but we had moral status in virtue of our futures, in virtue of the fact that we were the beginning stages of persons.
	But some early fetuses will die early in pregnancy either due to abortion or miscarriage.
	And in my view, that's a very different kind of entity.
	That's something that doesn't have a future as a person and it doesn't have moral status.
	Why would we think that what's actually going to happen to fetus in the future is going to make this big difference between having some moral status and not.
	I mean, it seems like, can't you only judge that in hindsight?
	Right, so there's a real question of how could we know?
	Well, often we do know.
	So often if we know that a woman is planning to get an abortion and we know that abortion is available to her, then we know that that fetus is going to die, that it's not the kind of, it's not a kind of thing like the fetuses that became us.
	It's not something with moral status on my view.
	In case you're wondering, yes, that is a particularly repugnant, self-serving, self-fulfilling prophecy that she has just used to retroactively justify the murder of a baby.
	If you say that a person who has no future has no moral status and guarantee that they have no future by murdering them, you do not exculpate yourself of the guilt of the murder based on the knowledge that you plan to murder them.
	It is, instead, a confession.
	This line of thought is also why there is the concept of non-human people, animals that are believed to have a capacity for sentience which approaches that of a human being and therefore should be extended the same rights as a human based on the same kind of personhood.
	As one argument in favour explains, In the studies of cetacean intelligence, examining social cognition and behavioural strategies, scientific research suggests that individuality, consciousness, self-awareness is no longer a unique human property.
	Orcas may not be humans, but evidence is mounting that they are non-human persons, thus endowed with rights and protections.
	This, of course, means that rights are neither intrinsic nor unalienable.
	According to this new liberal conception, they are, in fact, contingent on the rational decision-making faculty of the subject.
	This new view of liberal rights is to ensure that the contradictions between consent-based rights can be ironed out.
	It is okay to kill an unborn baby because it cannot make a moral choice, which enables the mother's liberal right to make choices about her own body.
	This drive to identify a single universal sentient type underpins all of liberal thought, and when combined with the desire to make them all equal, creates the bug poster.
	A person who can look at an invading army of devouring insects and bravely take their side in their war on humanity.
	We can see this, for example, in a liberal's response to this Twitter poll.
	An alien race is hostile and going to exterminate humanity.
	Somehow you are given access to a weapon that will obliterate the enemy in their entirety.
	Not just their military, but they as a species will cease to exist.
	Do you press the button?
	It's not a surprise that 90% voted yes to pushing the button, as this would seem to be a fairly uncomplicated question.
	Why should we, the humans, not save humanity, the thing we are from and attached to, by wiping out a genocidal alien race?
	But if you believe that being sentient and conscious is the condition for personhood, and that that endows you with fundamental rights, and you believe in the equality of all rational beings, you might reply with, you view the human race in such high esteem that you destroy an entire other intelligent species to save it, just because you're human too?
	Why are they worth less than us?
	Who's to say that they aren't a better species than we are?
	Maybe we deserve extermination more than them.
	The instinct of the bug poster is to attempt to equivocate, because there is no substantive difference between the two groups from his perspective rooted in liberal morality.
	He is interested in levelling the playing field between the two, as neither group has a greater moral weight to him, and so he expresses an out-group preference in his attempt to balance the scales, even if it would lead to his own destruction.
	He doesn't appear to have any other moral avenue to take, no matter how evil and atrocious the enemy appears.
	After all, who is to say that we are better than them?
	Maybe we deserve extermination, as much if not more than they do.
	Maybe we do, Curtis.
	Maybe we do.
	But this is my reply.
	I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill them all!
	Yeah!
	Oh yeah!
	Yeah!

▲