JTarrou
3d ago
I don't see this as the important part, but I mean all the various minority groups that outperform the white average. Jews are a central example, but east asians, indians, nigerians, arabs etc.
Equivocation between whether jews are the oppressed victims of the holocaust or the perpetrators of a current one is a perennial favorite. It's different things. The left doesn't like right-wing nationalistic jews (Israelis), but they do like western communist jews who never went to Israel to try their stupid ideas. Often the second group are protesting the first. Meanwhile the right understands a nationalistic western-oriented regional ally, but isn't that fond of the "jooos" in NYC and Berkeley. It's just politics, and the requisite belief systems thereof.
JTarrou
4d ago
Because that's the historical dispensation of the modern left. There is a conservation of tribalism, people just move the groups around and emphasize identities to fit the current fashion. There is the exact same tension in the discussion of "white people's" wealth and the disparities between average whites and asians, jews, indians etc. All the structural advantages that supposedly keep the black man down in favor of the white man wind up disproportionately benefitting nonwhite or marginally white groups?
It's all just a conspiracy theory, essentially.
When faced with inequality of criminality, condemn "men" and guns. But not the most violent subset of men, and definitely don't enforce the current firearm laws harshly against that group specifically. Then, complain about different men and different guns to the ones causing the problem.
When faced with inequality of income, condemn whites and men. But not the most disproportionately wealthy groups which are no white supremacist's idea of a good time. Also no one can define "men".
It's all just a grand unified theory of white male christian hatred that explains all differential outcomes for everyone else, but only when the comparison is negative. It shifts blame from the political ingroup to the outgroup.
All this despite the obvious logical problems and the messiness of all the categories involved. This is the theology that holds the modern left together, the unified hatred of the modern global economy ("capitalism"), Realpolitik, Western civilization broadly, white people specifically, and of course men.
The progressive stack is always topped by whatever is fashionably considered the biggest opponent of these general categories. Global Warming, No Kings, Free Palestine, Pussy hats, BLM, NAFTA, MeToo, Nuclear Power, the Soviet Union, Iran etc.
The right has all the same things in places, but due to the class gap it's more drunk tradesmen and internet edgelords than senators and ivy league college presidents.
JTarrou
6d ago
Not sure if this was intended for me, but I'll take a crack.
Male advantages increase as the sport more closely resembles what sports aspire to replace. In soccer? Female skill and conditioning could overmatch untrained males. Grappling? Not nearly as much. MMA? Even less.
The closer you get to actual combat, the premium on male advantages rise and compound. Very athletic women average ~150lb. The average adult male is 200. On average, a top female athlete is giving up fifty pounds to the untrained joe.
JTarrou
6d ago
No women's team in any sport has ever defeated a U-15 boys team at anything except whinging about not getting paid enough for that level of play. The equality comparison must be lowered. Shall we compromise on thirteen?
What percentage of thirteen-year-old boys do you think the average untrained adult male could whip in a fight?
JTarrou
6d ago
Do you mean to tell me if the woman trains for a couple years, and is healthy / responsive to training, she wouldn't be stronger than the majority of men that don't train, or are just fooling around in the gym / not really progressively overloading?
Yes. Same thing for fighting.
The best female athletes in the world across a variety of sports roughly equal the athletic performance of ten to twelve year old boys. That's the general physical capability of extreme female athletes.
Assuming that one's values are permanent and universal is a common religious belief.
As Ft says, this is conflict/mistake theory and while mistakes are common, the mistakes mostly occur because of conflict that incentivizes them.
Any group of three people or more will have conflict. Any group of people will have conflict with other groups of people. That's why we join groups. The liberal really does believe that he needs every immigrant he can get to break the back of white supremacy, to make sure his group wins. His group is just not "American citizens" in the way the conservative privileges that identity.
Every identity conceals a hidden struggle, a compromise, a division. America is red tribe blue tribe, white and black, male and female. It is only by forging a common identity that supersedes those divisions that people can get on the same side. But that identity in turn needs opposition to form it. We are Americans, not Mexicans or Canadians. The conflict, resolved at a lower level, simply moves up the chain.
The reverse is also true. The removal or delegitimization of one's opponent can lead to reignition of internal struggles. As the Soviet Union failed, the US became more internally divided. Without a simple global opponent to threaten the American identity, our political divisions steadily widen, even as policy difference shrinks.
More options
Context Copy link