4 ms·

> "Great Replacement Theory" is an inherently racist ideology No, it is neither racist (edit: as described by Kirk) nor an ideology. It's an accusation about

> "Great Replacement Theory" is an inherently racist ideology No, it is neither racist (edit: as described by Kirk) nor an ideology. It's an accusation about the intentions of others, in a "the purpose of a system is what it does" kind of way (faulty logic — as I've argued on HN before — but not bigoted), based on observing demographic trends, the rate of immigration etc. It is deeply conspiratorial thinking, but it does not claim that the people being "replaced" are inherently superior. Thus it is not racist even if we establish that the ingroup-outgroup distinction is racial, which already requires a quite broad conception of "race". (And Americans really are strange about that, in my opinion. There have been multiple occasions where I have been told that Americans generally consider a specific person to be "black" and I have deeply struggled to understand how that could be.) It is perfectly legitimate to suppose that the existing population of a country has a greater right to continue to exist on that land, and for their offspring to live there, than those who are petitioning from abroad to live there. In fact, it's hard to argue that a legitimate nation exists, in a place that lacks a government trusted to determine questions of citizenship. Besides which, one individual's use of a term does not necessarily carry every other user's intent. In brief, Kirk never argued that someone should be extradited, or lose citizenship, on the basis of race. Nor does that argument follow from anything he said. And note that you have not at all addressed the point about "words that support killing people". > In general, I haven't seen people making the hard assertion online that his words justified his death I have been shown many people outright celebrating. This is not something that can be feasibly done by someone who has normal psychological aversion to death and doesn't consider the death justified. > But I have seen plenty of "I don't think Charlie Kirk should have died, but the philosophy Charlie Kirk espoused shouldn't care if Charlie Kirk died" I've seen plenty of messages that included the second part without the first part. But regardless, this reflects a plain misunderstanding of that philosophy. Again, no pro-killing ideology here, outside of e.g. support for potentially-lethal police force to apprehend criminals in the act.

foldr 1y ago
GRT is racist because it's essential premise is that America belongs to white people, who are not the "existing population of [the] country" in any objective sense independent of racist ideology. GRTs do not care how long you have been in the US; they only care if you are white. (So people with indigenous ancestry and the great great grandchildren of slaves can go take a hike.) Murder and political assassination are deeply wrong, but are you sure you really want to go down the rabbit hole of GRT apologism to make your point about that?
- zahlman 1y ago
  > GRT is racist because it's essential premise is that America belongs to white people, who are not the "existing population of [the] country" in any objective sense independent of racist ideology. GRTs do not care how long you have been in the US; they only care if you are white. (So people with indigenous ancestry and the great great grandchildren of slaves can go take a hike.) Feel free to show me the part where Kirk macro-expanded the thought and asserted anything about whiteness having anything to do with a legitimate claim to residency. I don't think he has said anything like that. Part of the reason I don't think he has is that I was literally just watching an extended clip in which he directly addressed a legal Mexican immigrant and asserted unequivocally that the distinction he intended to draw was not based on race or nationality, but on following the immigration rules. > are you sure you really want to go down the rabbit hole of GRT apologism The large majority of people I have seen labelled as subscribing to this theory had, upon examination, views like Kirk's, and not ones consistent with racial supremacy. If you're going to say that the theory requires such an attitude, then you are not working with the same definitions as the person ascribing the theory to Kirk, assuming intellectual honesty. I responded to a person using a definition compatible with Kirk's ideology, using arguments compatible with what the evidence says about Kirk's ideology. To conflate this is to commit the "worst argument in the world" i.e. the noncentral fallacy (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...). Edit: I find it rather amazing that someone managed to downvote me in less time than it would have taken to read and properly understand the comment. My understanding is that downvotes are not available downthread when you're having a back-and-forth, so this must have come from a third party that somehow happened to come across this immediately, 8 comments deep.
  - fawkesalbus 1y ago
    @zahlman your responses here are amazing and really articulate. I sincerely appreciate the effort. Thanks! Most people around the world who are criticizing Charlie’s philosophy and beliefs have never watched a long form interview with him. Probably picked up a few sound bites or clips from here and there. Also there are many who are blinded by hatred towards him, to the point that they are drawing comparisons between him and Hitler. So it is hard to get through to such people. As someone with Jewish ancestry it is difficult and saddening to see this dilution. Nevertheless once again I appreciate your responses in this thread!
shadowgovt 1y ago
Kirk didn't advocate for merely an armed police force; he advocated for an armed citizenry. And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." We don't yet know the motives of his killer, but it may be worth observing that it is an unfortunate consequence of Kirk's philosophy of liberty that, since nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," a so-armed individual can, of their own free will, conclude that the man who (by his own claims) was instrumental in electing a tyrant, supports that tyrant, is clearly in the inner circle of that tyrant (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no)... Is someone who needs to die. Personally, I think that's repugnant and I hope the person who took the law into their own hands is constrained from further harming this society indefinitely. But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." (emphasis mine) Well, yes. Those are not "words that support killing people". You might as well say that countries that own nuclear weapons thereby demonstrate intent to eradicate life on Earth. The intended deterrence game theory is much the same. > nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," This line of argumentation proves far too much. All definitions are subjective in this manner. > But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment. To my understanding (I quickly searched up https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-amendment/ https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-a... and by a quick read it seems to align with what I understood of the history) this is not simply "Kirk's philosophy", but something the Founders (and other political thinkers of the time) were explicit about.

foldr 1y ago

GRT is racist because it's essential premise is that America belongs to white people, who are not the "existing population of [the] country" in any objective sense independent of racist ideology. GRTs do not care how long you have been in the US; they only care if you are white. (So people with indigenous ancestry and the great great grandchildren of slaves can go take a hike.) Murder and political assassination are deeply wrong, but are you sure you really want to go down the rabbit hole of GRT apologism to make your point about that?

zahlman 1y ago
> GRT is racist because it's essential premise is that America belongs to white people, who are not the "existing population of [the] country" in any objective sense independent of racist ideology. GRTs do not care how long you have been in the US; they only care if you are white. (So people with indigenous ancestry and the great great grandchildren of slaves can go take a hike.) Feel free to show me the part where Kirk macro-expanded the thought and asserted anything about whiteness having anything to do with a legitimate claim to residency. I don't think he has said anything like that. Part of the reason I don't think he has is that I was literally just watching an extended clip in which he directly addressed a legal Mexican immigrant and asserted unequivocally that the distinction he intended to draw was not based on race or nationality, but on following the immigration rules. > are you sure you really want to go down the rabbit hole of GRT apologism The large majority of people I have seen labelled as subscribing to this theory had, upon examination, views like Kirk's, and not ones consistent with racial supremacy. If you're going to say that the theory requires such an attitude, then you are not working with the same definitions as the person ascribing the theory to Kirk, assuming intellectual honesty. I responded to a person using a definition compatible with Kirk's ideology, using arguments compatible with what the evidence says about Kirk's ideology. To conflate this is to commit the "worst argument in the world" i.e. the noncentral fallacy (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...). Edit: I find it rather amazing that someone managed to downvote me in less time than it would have taken to read and properly understand the comment. My understanding is that downvotes are not available downthread when you're having a back-and-forth, so this must have come from a third party that somehow happened to come across this immediately, 8 comments deep.
- fawkesalbus 1y ago
  @zahlman your responses here are amazing and really articulate. I sincerely appreciate the effort. Thanks! Most people around the world who are criticizing Charlie’s philosophy and beliefs have never watched a long form interview with him. Probably picked up a few sound bites or clips from here and there. Also there are many who are blinded by hatred towards him, to the point that they are drawing comparisons between him and Hitler. So it is hard to get through to such people. As someone with Jewish ancestry it is difficult and saddening to see this dilution. Nevertheless once again I appreciate your responses in this thread!

shadowgovt 1y ago

Kirk didn't advocate for merely an armed police force; he advocated for an armed citizenry. And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." We don't yet know the motives of his killer, but it may be worth observing that it is an unfortunate consequence of Kirk's philosophy of liberty that, since nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," a so-armed individual can, of their own free will, conclude that the man who (by his own claims) was instrumental in electing a tyrant, supports that tyrant, is clearly in the inner circle of that tyrant (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no)... Is someone who needs to die. Personally, I think that's repugnant and I hope the person who took the law into their own hands is constrained from further harming this society indefinitely. But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment.

zahlman 1y ago
> And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." (emphasis mine) Well, yes. Those are not "words that support killing people". You might as well say that countries that own nuclear weapons thereby demonstrate intent to eradicate life on Earth. The intended deterrence game theory is much the same. > nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," This line of argumentation proves far too much. All definitions are subjective in this manner. > But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment. To my understanding (I quickly searched up https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-amendment/ https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-a... and by a quick read it seems to align with what I understood of the history) this is not simply "Kirk's philosophy", but something the Founders (and other political thinkers of the time) were explicit about.