Luke Ford

Kyle writes:

WSJ Interview of PayPal CEO: https://outline.com/2FUJSU

Dan Schulman makes clear that Charlottesville was the impetus for an intensified crackdown:

WSJ: When do you think people first took note that PayPal makes business decisions according to how they align with your corporate values?
MR. SCHULMAN: I think North Carolina was probably the moment that was the most visible, where we basically said this violates our core value and we need to make a very public stand on it.
Businesses need to be a force for good in those values and issues that they believe in. It shouldn’t come from backlash or people taking heat on it, because then it’s in response, as opposed to the definition of who you are and then how you react to the context that you find yourself in.
WSJ: Regarding users and accounts that may be violating PayPal policies, were there any specific events in recent years that motivated the company to step up its monitoring and enforcement?
MR. SCHULMAN: We had established a brand-reputation group, but we really expanded it after [the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017]. That was a defining moment for us as a company: that we really need to look at, as a very difficult thing, where do we draw a line around hate. Because the line between free speech and hate, nobody teaches it to you in college. Nobody’s defined it in the law.
The reason we had to expand the group is because websites may say something, but the links they have can link to hateful material and videos. You can’t look at a headline and make a determination. You have to spend time to really think about it.
WSJ: Has there ever been a decision made around terminating a relationship with a website or user that’s been reversed?
MR. SCHULMAN: No.
Old Scott Alexander article on meta-contrarianism:
Without meaning to imply anything about whether or not any of these positions are correct or not, the following triads come to mind as connected to an uneducated/contrarian/meta-contrarian divide:

– KKK-style racist / politically correct liberal / “but there are scientifically proven genetic differences”
– misogyny / women’s rights movement / men’s rights movement
– conservative / liberal / libertarian4
– herbal-spiritual-alternative medicine / conventional medicine / Robin Hanson
– don’t care about Africa / give aid to Africa / don’t give aid to Africa
– Obama is Muslim / Obama is obviously not Muslim, you idiot / Patri Friedman5

What is interesting about these triads is not that people hold the positions (which could be expected by chance) but that people get deep personal satisfaction from arguing the positions even when their arguments are unlikely to change policy6 – and that people identify with these positions to the point where arguments about them can become personal.

If meta-contrarianism is a real tendency in over-intelligent people, it doesn’t mean they should immediately abandon their beliefs; that would just be meta-meta-contrarianism. It means that they need to recognize the meta-contrarian tendency within themselves and so be extra suspicious and careful about a desire to believe something contrary to the prevailing contrarian wisdom, especially if they really enjoy doing so.

My take: The part of the dissident right that is worth saving is the ‘meta-contrarian’ part, the part that isn’t worth saving is the ‘uneducated’ part.
Kyle Rant: Get Serious
My objection to the behavior of minorities in America is that they misbehave, and then blame cis white men for problems they bring upon themselves.
It is not that I have some ‘spiritual’ dissatisfaction with living around minorities.
If you have some ‘spiritual’ dissatisfaction with living around minorities, you are basically saying that your religion is to be an asshole traitor to your countrymen. This is not going to fly. America is not the country for you. It will continue to be unsuitable for your preferences long after you are dead.
Many on the dissident right end up in very hot water when you really interrogate them about their beliefs. They love allusion and vagaries. Being vague is a fine way to avoid being accused. Once you are accused, it’s a great way to look guilty.
Attempts to use science as a shield fail spectacularly, and will continue to fail spectacularly. Science tells us that the problems and poverty that befall the Black community would be expected to befall the Black community whether Whites harmed them, helped them, or were neutral. It does not tell us to expel, disenfranchise, or in any way mistreat our countrymen.
Allusions to “divorce” beat the hell out of Stormer-style “we’ll come to their homes and taze them if they refuse to leave!” But ultimately, they fall victim to what history tells us. When a group is separated from a country and expelled, whether basically none of them die or basically all of them die is in large part a matter of circumstance.
There are ‘voluntary’ divorce proceedings that are proposed, such as – offer minorities some sum, like $100,000, to renounce American citizenship and leave.
The market value of American citizenship is well over $100,000, and likely is well over $1,000,000. However unsavvy minorities may be, if the deal is stingy they will quickly know from early adopters’ experience. The amount of money you’d need to actually make renouncing citizenship a good deal is spectacularly large. If you improbably take political power and then devote a huge fraction of the budget to this quixotic policy, it will proceed for a little while and then collapse under its own weight.
Which leaves us in the same position. There is no realistic scenario where America gets rid of its minorities.
Perhaps the ethnostate may be in some new, virgin land! But again, realism intrudes. The people who are inclined in this direction are few, disorganized, and dysfunctional. Contrast the dissident right with early Zionism, and the difference is staggering. There is no reason to expect any effective contingent of White Americans to go found a successful ‘ethnostate’ colony elsewhere.
It’s time to get serious, and deal with politics as it is. There is a bipolar tendency in the dissident right – either it’s VICTORY or ‘blackpill.’ There needs to be a shift towards a clear eyed analysis of the current position.
2019 America is, in contrast to most of human history, spectacularly wealthy, and spectacularly safe. This is an advantage because it gives plenty of time to think and organize. It is clear at this point that the primary issue facing the dissident right is absurd dysfunction in some of its members. A message needs to be crafted that is anathema to self-destructive losers, and also addresses the issue of destructive slander against white people. I obviously believe that libertarianism fits that bill, with a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility. Peterson provides a lot to crib from in that regard. However, I am interested in more ways to craft a message that will be instinctively and absolutely rejected by the kind of people who might drive their car into a crowd or drive a sword through their rather lizardy brothers’ head.
I think any attempt to move forward that isn’t compatible with this goal is doomed.