Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
This is a feature of the culture War I'm seeing more and more. Proxy battles that few people care deeply about but have features that make them better or worse to do battle on. This game seems like favorable terrain from the woke angle and it's tempting to just give them it but I understand the impulse to fight on the terrain anyways.
Not engaging and being critical is a default victory for the minoritarian/woke supporters. Does this means you are obligated to take part in the culture wars? Well, kind of. Like it or not, those who show up are those who win. Disengagement is not a neutral position but helps the aggressive side making moves that doesn't want criticism. It is of course very understandable for someone not to want to debate such issues, but I wouldn't praise disengagement as a good attitude.
In general, a good society only exists and works when people comprising it are sharing good moral values as priors and work together based on that shared ground. And even then, even if the majority has good moral principles organized minorities who have captured sufficient power can infringe on the values of the majority. Maybe part of sufficiently good morals includes controlling such issues without going off the rails.
I am increasingly of the view that we need antiwoke industry regulations to stop such things and force on institutions, including private corporations to have to show some level of sensitivity that goes against the progressive stack. Or making quotas in favor of progressive stack groups downright illegal and if not large fines, perhaps even harsher criminal penalties. Including rnforcing laws in the book that already would stop this agenda. Of course the end point wouldn't be no black guys or women ever, or zero cultural appropriation ever, sorry anyone wishing this, but there should be penalties for excessive cultural appropriation, or trying to stack the deck with progressive stack diversity.
Nor can say Japanese be expected to not have mainly Japanese characters. I would say that it is understandable for nations to promote more of their own culture, but not understandable to have to shoe horn an excess of progressive associated demographics, or protagonists where they shouldn't be under such goals. I don't know exactly where the lines should be put, but I am firmly confident that it would be better if there were such lines against the woke/intersectionalists, provided an attempt of being reasonable about it is made.
On the tally we can add:
Loss of freedom of those who want to push the woke agenda. A sacrifice I am very willing to make.
More freedom for those working in companies, journalism, etc, who want to dissent from this but can't.
Fairer arrangement for actors, including voice actors.
Greater historical accuracy and even respect of mythos that are related to specific people. For example Japanese semi mythological settings, or Lord of the Rings which are related to particular peoples.
Greater quality as checkbox diversity isn't prioritized.
Better options for the people don't like woke content who outnumber those who do.
Enforcing a good general principle and eroding an ideology that is not isolated in media but from double standards there and elsewhere can and will lead to greater discrimination and further slippery slope dangers.
There are other things important than just GDP. But even from that perspective, it is better from a non short-term point of view for women to have children and careers and sacrifice the later to an extend for the first. Society will be richer and not poorer in that case, as there won't be declining number of human capital. This applies especially in some of the richer countries with high human capital level of population. For an individual company of course it doesn't benefit them for their female workers to work less, so there might be a certain tragedy of the commons.
Actually women can live long enough that we can easily get both children and economic productivity from them, even if children are the bigger priority. I don't see what is wrong with mothers spending some more time at home while their children are younger. The cost vs benefit is in favor of sacrificing some career years. There are in fact women who do what I suggest already, just less than they existed, in part due to the relative decline of male wages. A minimum painless thing to be done that wouldn't be sufficient to reverse things but is a start should be to stop any pro female AA policies.
Additionally, it isn't as if other lifestyle aspects aren't eating time spend raising children. Trying to promote childbirth as a current issue, in a hardcore enough manner and focusing on influencing cultural preferences would probably work. And it is better alternative than doing nothing. This is something that is going to result in supporting projects and individuals and groups that are pro-natalist and benefiting them over those opposing it and then selling it as a lifestyle. Not everyone but plenty of people, especially women seem to be able to get onboard with projects promoted aggressively and consistently enough by the goverment and media and various NGOs. Why not use such forces to promote something actually good for a change?
You up the ante in attacking white women in trying to censor negative criticism of black women. You should stop acting as if you are a mod for a reddit sub and trying to enforce left wing ideology on everyone. Unattractive is not equivalent to calling a group disgustingly fat which is more inflammatory. Plus, I won't interpret you choosing that rhetoric as just being a case of providing an example. It seems to me that you are deliberately want to get away with calling white women as disgustingly fat.
It is actually the case that white women are more attractive than black women. Less obese too. So it can't be applied to white women which aren't seen as unattractive.
Black women tend to be rated as less attractive than others.
I think the roots of SJP in the civil rights movement started with relatable, noble goals and had the bad luck to mostly achieve their goals. So they did what any movement would do and picked further goals. Some, like gay rights, were again noble enough. Some, like insisting on equality of outcomes instead of color-blindness were IMHO harmful, some were mostly silly empty symbolism (like Confederate statues -- if you have the majority to blow them up, whatever, but this is not a decisive battle for the future of the US in any case.).
The civil rights movement was after equality of outcome from the start. Most of the things one finds bad about modern black identity politics existed there. If anything, the original movement was more violent against white people.
You could argue that parts of the broader society that helped the movement on some areas might have had more limited goals, or that they had then more so legitimate grievances too, but the reality is the core movement and a figure like MLK would be all in favor of the modern woke types, and he would be insinuating that opposition as he did as the time with contemporary republicans are nazis, racists, etc. It simply wasn't a movement with just limited goals.
Eurovision has always been a mix of political and song enjoyment. It is highly unlikely that politics had nothing to do with this considering how the Israeli-Palestinian war is the current big issue. Ukraine won in 2022, and it makes sense that the war is going to affect a decent share of votes.
This fits but I actually thought of the Praetorian Guard too when it comes to the Roman analogies.
When dealing with the contemporary version of it, I hope we don't have to wait as long as the Romans did for Severus Septimius to put the Praetorian Guard in its place.
Trump banned diversity training in the goverment in his first administration. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/
In contrast Biden administration was super woke. Trump and people like Rufo will work together anyhow. I wouldn't have too high expectations, but there is going to be considerable difference even from a mostly ineffective Trump who pushes right a bit, versus a Biden administration pushing quite far left.
There are those who want a neutered right, and frame the alternative with negative exaggerations and fearmongering. The reality is like Democrat administrations purged a lot of people in the goverment to put their own loyalists in charge, it isn't only fair for the right to do this to govern in a different manner than that, but also the only way to change things.
Wanting a neutered right, is not the agenda of genuine moderates but people who are on the same side as Biden.
How we got here was through Republicans like Romney called moderate but who supported BLM. And through liberals, framed as more moderate than they are, but who actually are quite far left culturally and implemented those changes. Only a political coalition that genuinely opposes the intersectional agenda can genuinely push it back.
The right is the only coalition push back these things. Can the center do this? Well, some of the people called far right, or considered part of the right if one tries to objectively judge how much they pander to different identity groups, ironically people like Trump are closer to the center than many other people (falsely) labeled moderate like Mitt Romney.
Those usually carrying the moderate or liberal labels, are insufficiently against the whole woke agenda, and too much for it. So they won't push back and can't put it away. What some of them seem to be doing is to sometimes try to pretend they are already doing this. So there isn't going to be a genuine attempt by liberals and people like Romeny to put the woke away, but there might be attempts to define wokeness narrowly, and still support the same agenda. The limited hangout maneuver.
In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.
Yes, but that will solidify idpol and it will still be fashionable but not dominating the national conversation, until the focus passes and a new Floyd hysteria emerges. That something isn't as discussed as much as previously, does not stop it from being a problem. Moreover, it can coexist just as it continues to coexist with covid focus or the Israel conflict with Palestinians. Moreover, foreign policy presidencies tend to be presidencies engaging in idiotic destabilizing expensive wars that make the MIC richer, but are actually damaging towards their country and the world. Which isn't to say extreme isolationism is the solution.
Identity politics are always here to stay, the question is if we got a sane and fair arrangement, or one that gives valid reason for people to oppose and incentivizes political conflict. Which doesn't change unless the ideology of modern new left liberals and even those in the establishment conservative parties who aren't actually conservative who agree with them stops being influential. Because it is an agenda that does try to screw over, and increasingly at that, the progressive intersectional coalition outgroups, such as white Christian men. The way to have peace, and to relax culture war intensity is to enforce something better and more even handed. Which as is the case always with even handed policies, sharing elements with other groups, shares in a vein diagram ground with the genuine far right. Additionally, it is itself definitely seen by those with the new left liberal agenda as far right, and labeled at such. Although, that isn't actually accurate, and has to do with the strategy of the far left to label everyone other than them with pejoratives.
What is important to understand is that we are never going to get a fair arrangement that reduces culture war intensity, under the hysteric paranoia of the far right, that leads people to oppose reasonable positions because they associate them with the far right. In fact there are issues where even the most hardcore people on the far right have legitimate grievances about their favorite groups being mistreated. And it is in fact possible and preferable to the current situation to share grounds with anyone on issues they have a point, and refuse to share ground with them where they are wrong.
From liberal-ish space, what would aid to relax tensions, is an attitude of compromise and understanding that there has been a real problem of cultural/identitarian progressive overreach. That overreach and progressive extremism also relates to the neutering of the right.
No, its not liberalism, since liberalism includes more than that, especially modern mainstream liberalism.
New left Liberalism is supporting supression of those most stongly opposing such agendas while promoting itself mass migration of foreign groups, hate speech laws, discrimination and propaganda against the replaced non progressiv demographics (creating future electoral politics also more in line with agendas like black communism nationalism) while concern trolling people who oppose this. Of course new left liberals have supported the trajectory South Africa has followed and promoted similiar policies to their own countries. Including hate speech laws and propaganda that demonizes white people and elevates progressive favored grousp as superior. The new left does have a radical progressive supremacist and authoritarian agenda which is implementing in practice. The ADL that you support and your politics are radical in fact. This idea promtoed by various people that try to seperate this new left agenda from liberalism, is simply not respectful of both present situation and of history. There is not in fact a clear border seperating liberals from the far left.
That is a core aspect of what modern liberalism is in practice. Even if we have supporters of it who try to present it as something else.
As for suppressing black communist nationalists leading to tyranny. Of course it is a core aspect of a free democratic society, and even a free non democratic society to have a constitution and not let just any pollicy run as it goes against the rights. New left, tribalist favoritism in favor of blacks and demonization against. The idea that democratic societies should suprress north korean like extremists is a sound one and we live in a world where far leftists suprress those more even handed than them under the pretense they are suppressing far righters.
The only way we avoid inevitable hardcore bad consequences is to suppress far left extremists. It does not lead to tyranny to do so, it helps us avoid their tyranny to keep them down. And in fact, supressing far left extremists whose agenda is to oppress for example both political opposition and often the case whites, with their policies, propaganda and false history, and authoritarianism, is a core element of getting the promise of democracy. Plus avoiding the enormous problems of decline and corruption from their far left politics that have helped bring south africa enormous decline. So the promise of democracy is a society that protects the common good and respects the human rights of its people, not just whatever elites who pretend represent public opinion says, applies, nor mob rule. The promise of democracy has failed because instead of doing this, we have far left extremists persecuting others.
And in countries like South Africa it was going to be indeed a much more difficult proposition due to demographics. This doesn't change the fact that the best option at play was not to give the power to black commnist nationalists. And the difficulties also relating not just to demographics but global left and liberals pushing things in that direction when they could have been adamant to push for some reforms but not to give power to black communist nationalists. Not to accept the radical premise that inequalities are just due to racism.
The tribe new left liberals and what they believe is bad and should be suppressed but the general philosophy of liberalism, or what is associated with that before or excluding the new left, is not perfect but has important flaws. But there are certain elements/virtues that are valuable. A bit like with the enlightenment, we had reign of terror and far left extremists, with the French revolution, but there were some valuable elements in the enlightenment. Ultimately liberalism philosophically becomes inevitably this radical far left, hypocritical authoritarian dictatorship of progressivism monstrosity, if not combined with a healthy dose of conservatism and also, since a core part of the problem is also extreme favoritism and tribalism for progressive associated tribes and hatred and contempt for the rights while virtue signaling how they are antiracists, also to aknowledge the group rights of non progressive groups, so a certain nationalism in combination with certain internationalism that respects nations, both their own and of foreign ones is also a component of the only thing that has worked well as international justice which is ethnopluralism where different nations have reciprocoal rights. So, things like checks and balances are valuable, but so are laws against treason and not letting far left extremists taking over. I actually do think that this is a compromise on liberalism because it does exist as a purity spiraling ideology that transforms into something more far left. There is an inherent element of whigish progressive doubling down in historical liberalism, that can lead to it becoming far left as it has done. Just like non new left western societies were a compromise between liberal, conservative, nationalist and even in some cases internationalist elements, within them the radical part that saw them following the liberal and progressive doubling down trajectory, also existed.
And today modern liberal organizations instead of applying international justice consistently, we have organisations like Amnesty international pretend that Europeans are not indingeneous in their own homelands.
So yeah, modern mainstream liberalism is completely rotted with cultural marxist, authoritarian agendas and extremely machiavelian. It is a part of the far left. With liberalism as a philosophy contra to liberals as a political tribe and their political philosophy of modern liberalism where things are much more negative because the later are have been supporting something more extreme, what I am suggesting is throwing out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Successful modern western societies were a mixture of liberal, conservative, nationalist and internationalist elements and which are something more sophisticated, wiser and greater fulfills the high minded promises of concepts like democracy, or positive associations of liberalism. They failed to keep down far left extremists whose agenda is as I described however, and the world is now experiencing the consequences and is on a radicla path of transformation to south africa like agenda.
Of course another element of far left extremism part of liberalism is extreme tolerance for far left extremists and even ethnic authoritarian supremacists, of a more left wing hue, which destroys their society, in combination, in new left liberalism with a hypocritical sharing and being the authoritarian supremacist movement that through law and practice implements a cancel culture to any dissent and enforces the demonization, discrimination, double standards in the justice system too of course and even deliberately follows policies that will lead to the extinction and replacement of their ethnic outgroup. While also tolerating radicals who want something worse and transforming society in a direction where it made possible that eventually they may get their way. Not to mention the race targeted violence and criminality that ensues in a society that has this kind of policies and rhetoric.
The fact that modern new left liberalism denies this nature and tries to present itself as an anti-authoritarian movement, doesn't change the fact that is an authoritarian movement in fact. Indeed, it is a part of its negative element that makes it deserving of a more negative reputation.
This ideology is the problem. I certainly am not suggesting we purity spiral dismantle anything that might seem to fit into liberalism, when I argue that communist nationalists should not have the political power to run South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabue to the ground. Wiith murderous consequences especially for the later. In your case the extremely authoritarian and highly influential ADL, brings such objections, but you have sided with them.
And I can't but wonder if you bring such objections because you do think such far left extremists should successfully do what they want and persecute dissent, and not because you genuinely oppose tyranny, but the opposite where you sympathize with black communist nationalist agenda. Because, actually it is the fact that new left liberalism implements similar agendas and sympathizes with them, and allows state within a state NGOs to run riot and both in private sphere, and within goverment, persecute people. Its not a fringe movement but mainstream in modern liberalism and even supposed rightist parties like Torries which aren't right wing, which have adopted modern liberalism have done. And there are few organizations more emblematic of this kind of politics than the ADL.
So no, we should give an accurate reputation of what new left liberalism is doing, instead of this fraud of a consistent movement for tolerance, that is even handed, following international justice and consistent rules. It is a cultural marxist movement that shares plenty with black communist nationalists they supported taking over in South Africa and is increasingly trying to bring more south africa politics in western countries. However, excessive tolerance to such far left extremism in western societies has also been an unwise course that has let to the tyranny of the far left. The reality is that machiavelian hiding their power level far leftists, under the banner of liberalism have been pushing in such direction, but there have also been people who have been more unwisely gullible, who were manipulated by the machiavelian far leftists who concern trolled tolerance and didn't understand how tolerating far left extremists to march on institutions and take over is ruinous and unwise, and not a virtue. That they weren't tolerating an ideology of tolerance and restraint, but a radical ideology.
It goes against a free society to not be in the sweet spot of tolerance, to not have rules against treason and criminals, and not consider treason and criminality when certain agendas that do qualify are implement and factions do take over. The right to accurately label treason as such, is one eroded by far left extremism when it comes to labeling their agenda at such, but this isn't because the end result it seeks is a tolerant society, but the opposite. The only free and just societies that have ever existed are those who make wise trade offs and yes do show a restraint, but still keep criminals down. Obviously, if you don't keep totalitarian political comisars down, if like the Russians 100 years ago, you are passive in the face of radicals trying to take over your country and slow to react, the end result is one that is worse than if you did act.
Another aspect of this, was not tolerance, or be guilible but passivity and lacking will for confrontation, even though this was an important issue that a stand ought to had been made, and also should be made today. Especially for countries which aren't yet South Africa. Letting things go further in a South Africa direction, is going to be another mistake.
In any case, we don't live in an age of consistent extreme tolerance, and we have no reason to let far left extremists ruin things, due to a principle of tolerance that nobody follows consistently and certainly is not seen as incompatible with democracy. Modern liberalism is a movement for tolerating its far left extremists which include actual self identifying liberals and people they sympathize with, with pretense of universalist tolerance they don't follow because they are being incredibly intolerant of others. Western democracies that operate under this ideology are rather intolerant to what they perceive often inaccurately, as too far to the right. Which is categorized broadly in a manner that brings us far left tyranny. This is the time where the pressing need is for taking seriously the enormous problem of far left extremists who are actually a fatal danger to a free, non tyrannical society. And then not letting such ideology destroy countries, both through tyranny and through the other negative consequences of cultural marxist regimes.
In both cases, doing some reforms but not going in the direction of black communist nationalists would definetly be much better than handing power to black communist nationalists like Mugabe and the ANC. Indeed, if you want to avoid racism, you not only don't handle power to them, you suppress them by force and not allow them to have organizations. What we got now, is liberal parties worldwide trying to copy the ANC agenda. Global liberalism supporting ANC coming to power is also condemnable. Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.
Even if you have a multiethnic country that isn't going to seperate, you should supress by force this kind of ideology and politics on the basis of protecting a group, in this case whites, either as minority, or as a larger demographic. Democracy as it is understood does not necessarily imply allowing all sorts of policies and the tyranny of progressive supremacists. But in any case, it is the better choose to suppress the choice of voters for black communist nationalists, and even of elites who bypass agenda of voters and are even more supportive of such ideology as has been the case in some european countries. Or even of very influential NGOs of this ideology which become a state within a state.
A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned, would be both a better governed one, and one that seeks the common good and respects the rights of its people, over following an agenda to screw whites, for blacks and promote communist nationalism which is also horrible policy in general. Doubly so when it is black communist nationalism against whites, that pretends their contributions to the economy is due to legacy of apartheid and racism. In both a democratic, and non democratic system you should suppress this ideology and its organizations.
Of course, if a significant part of a different ethnic group population has an agenda that is about screwing over the other ethnic group and pretend they are antiracist when doing so, then I don't see why separation is necessarily the wrong choice. Less problem of inequality between blacks and whites in the same country, if they are in a different country.
It raises the question of what the purpose of government is (ie is it about creating a good life or is it about self determination). If the latter, then what is the SA argument against allowing the Boers to form their own separate country. There isn’t even the anti colonialism argument.
Absolutely valid point, for which the answer is that the movement that is against Boers having self determination is a hypocritcal antiwhite black nationalist and other intersectional alliances movement. It isn't a consistent movement that consistently follows principles for, or against self determination, or for, or against racism. It is who/whom that animates this movement. Even though there are definitely supporters of it who don't see themselves that way.
I don't agree with Spencer's viewpoint, although I don't agree with the destroy nations, or european nations ideology. I am more team ethnopluralism than team one ethnic group dominating the others.
Tate, makes some true and astute observations that trigger people, and also says dumb stuff, and promotes also exaggerations in the semi ironic, just joking, but am I really, way. For the dumb and later parts of Tate's rhetoric, being annoyed is understandable. He also has this sketchy history and it is understandable to gain dislikes from that.
You can disagree with them, and even dislike them, but obviously that doesn't make them stupid.
Also, stupid philosophy, =/ underperforming idiot, fortunately or unfortunately.
Both the way they talk, their notoriety, and accomplishments, don't show them to be the underperformers you label them as because you dislike their views. Spencer was an editor IIRC before his notoriety too.
And why is their success with social media, not something that demonstrates some ability? For Tate especially. Being charismatic is a helpful trait for success, and just like it and other behaviors helped him with social media, it might have helped elsewhere. Or he could take advantage of the same idea of trying to cultivate a following, in other instances.
Both seem to be intelligent people with some sociopathic traits.
Spencer will probably be more successful without social media and his politics.
Tate would be less successful, but he was successful before social media, albeit he used cam whores, or allegedly might have engaged in illegal activity as a pimp.
They would likely be successful, for a time, in various systems too, but also might get in trouble by overstepping legal and moral boundaries.
One the problems with you insisting with this unnecessary story that bitterly blames men is that you treat different generations as the same men. Another, is that there were other things bad towards men that men went along with due to feminist ideology, or browbeating. Certainly, complaints didn't start in the 2020s!
Again, to treat the entire discourse as blaming women alone, is inaccurate. Especially when feminist paradigm is definitely anti male, and at such, even those with an even handed response are going to be critical of that. You seem to be promoting a sex negative type of feminist narrative here.
But in all the "birth rate dropping, women should be having more babies" discussion I see, nobody is talking about the other side of the equation
But I did just talk about the other side of the equation too and even agreed with you on that. Why don't you just accept this and drop the idea that nobody is willing to talk about both men and women behaving in accordance to obligations that apply to both?
It isn't accurate that nobody is willing to do that, since that has has been part of this discussion. It is also true that I offered some things that apply more towards women, such as that their benefit from affirmative action depresses relationships
It doesn't seem like your insistence on promoting this narrative, changes even when people promote such things first, or agree with such points.
Men also have expectations, standards, and conditioning from wider society around marriage and family (which culturally has shifted from "early marriage, be main breadwinner, have two to four kids" to "develop your career, enjoy yourself while still young, mature adulthood is put off until thirties, kids are an expensive drag which prevent you from spending your money on having fun and buying stuff").
I agree again, and I also promoted the change of societal expectations and education and career first, for both men and women. It isn't true that the entire discussion is for men to have their cake and eat it too.
And of course, it is especially unreasonable to be blaming men in general for being the obstacle because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Blaming progressivism, including European progressives and fellow travelers and influence of certain non Europeans and their activist movements (such as black activist movements and Jewish activist movements and the first included plenty of the later) for "cucking" Europeans is correct but it was influenced by versions of Christianity. Even though atheistic ideology has been even more influential. I do think Judaism, as in religious Judaism gets too little blame, not only for the direct influence of Jews, but also in the way Christianity is said to resemble such far left movements, well that applies even more for Judaism. Of course it applies especially to the Jews with their religion and their understanding that says they never didn't do nothing wrong, were oppressed by the evil other, but they will have their revenge and rule as they deserve. Add into that some unviersalism about how they are in the mission to heal the world and acting for universal justice.
The influence of this kind of perspective in progressive identity grievance movements in general, both of ethnic groups, and of groups like women, LGBT, etc, is of course notable. There is of course progressive Judaism, and the sizable influence of actual Jews, but the actual Jewish grievance perspective is influential even where no Jews can be found, but people who have absorbed this ideology. Exactly in the way people claim non Christians ideologically share elements with Christianity. Indeed, progressive Christianity in the 20th century has obviously been influenced by progressive Judaism.
And just like there has been a far left Jewish tradition, we even had a direct history of Christian radicals going even before 20th century, even if they weren't the dominant strain in Christianity. Their influence in the USA did play its role. There is a difference of course with the Jewish perspective which isn't pathologically altruist, and the European Christian progressive perspective which is against its own demographic, but I do think Black Christianity is much closer to the Jewish perspective where it is a grievance movement that admits no wrong for its own, and seeks more for its group under the framing of universal justice. Although progressive Judaism which is very influential and Black Christianity might be willing to make some intersectional compromises for similar groups, but not for the common outgroup.
So, yes the secular left, including secular leftists who are pro markets have been very influential, but there have been religious influences there. What is called secular, often carries plenty of religious dna. There is also a significant anti-Christian and anticlerical tradition.
Since official Christianity through modernity includes the progressive version though, you can't really pretend that version of Christianity isn't pro subservient/self hating Europeans. It isn't all modern Christianity, but it does exist. Of course, if one examines atheists, they tend to share more the progressive and pathologically altruist vision, so I wouldn't focus on all Christians as the demographic to blame. Especially since anti-Christianity has been an aspect of progressive movements as well. Simultaneously, part of the progressive agenda, has been to corrupt Christianity and have progressivism wear it as a skinsuit.
My view is that progressive Christianity does not derive as the natural telos of Christianity, however Christianity is more universalist than certain other religions, but the end can be something more moderate, like historical Christianity was.
Since, I don't think being maximally self-centered as a group is good, nor pathologically altruist is good, usually civilizations more in the sweet spot were more Christian than today. But it does matter what kind of Christianity you got. If your goal is to follow the goal I mentioned, pathologically altruist Christianity is worse for a civilization than a more secular approach that isn't pathologically altruist. So, I don't think the terminal goal should be "Christianity only", but there ought to be tolerance between those Christians and not Christians who aren't for the agenda to destroy european civilization and its people.
It isn't as if the current social arrangement is only held up by men in general wanting to have their cake and eat it. You really are fixated on men at primary to blame movers and shakers and as if such things are just an adversarial negotiation between men and women. Actually some of male influence has also to do with male feminists, so it isn't' as if men prioritize in a self serving manner just male interest and there is the influence of women too and what they want. But I agree that things changing where we have a prioritization of marriage over constant dating life, is going to involve both men and women doing that.
Most of your post still focuses on the narrative of blaming men continually though as getting a taste of their own medicine, with one sided narratives which is the classic far left/feminist narrative with the twist that you don't see agency for the women with sexual revolution.
Your message includes excessive browbeating against men, which is the last thing we want.
You genuinely are repeatedly trying to have this discussion with me, of how blaming men is legitimate because of past sins, when my point that I have been discussing was that such an approach is not legitimate way to approach issues to begin with.
While I am not interested in forcing women to have babies and favor sensible changes that create a situation where more people are in monogamous relationships and have more children, I am in favor of society marginalizing factions promoting these narratives of one sided oppression and permanent revenge and getting even, which are not society's best interests but also sadistic glee against men is bad on its own right. Being against one's fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands, who are permanently blamed as being permanently responsible as men based on slanted one sided narratives, is not what we need.
The issues with that are numerous. An additional one is this: I don't accept the one sided story, and one where women don't have agency, but even if someone was to grant it, which I don't, then how are current men to blame for what other men did previously? So, it is another example of how such movement and narrative is destructive and just irrationally spiteful.
Ironically, what you argue fits perfectly the point of the blog post I previously linked: https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage
Bellow you argue the following:
A lot of it is economic - unless you have one partner with a lot of money, it's not really feasible to be a stay at home wife and mother. If both of you have to work, then there's little chance to have kids because it all needs to be planned around education and careers, and then when you do, you're paying for childcare which is pretty much eating up one of your wages. You won't get a mortgage without two incomes, and renting is another problem (can you even find a place to rent, and if you do how high is the rent, and will the lease allow children?)
Economic expenses of parenthood aren't fully explanatory because even in societies with decent wages and high welfare to parents have some these issues. Plus the issue isn't' just births but relationships and decline there too. The economic issue is probably a factor in relation with expectations and other issues I promoted related to education first as a model and so on. Various of these issues also relate with social norms that both men and women follow, not everything is more related to female behavior and incentives specifically.
Ultimately from the article I linked I want to highlight this which goes further than just blaming women:
The only way America will ever push people to marry is if social norms change. In modern America, marriage and family are more about individual fulfillment than serving a higher purpose. You do this because you want to, not because it’s your duty to do so. As long as hyperindividualism reigns supreme, we will continue to have women complain about dating online.
The Right should encourage young men to improve themselves, but conservatives engage in browbeating.
You have been consistently mischaracterizing the idea that men are getting a raw deal in the current arrangement as blaming women exclusively, and are reacting to opposition to things like the bellow
Attractive women in their prime (early-to-mid 20s) also have a similar level of abundance and don’t want to settle down either. Family would get in the way of their lifestyle. Their mind changes as soon as they hit 30, yet they’re now less capable of getting the man they think they deserve. The 30-something chads will eventually want to settle down, but they want a girl in her early-to-mid 20s (this reality motivates women’s rage over age gap relationships). But they’re less likely to obtain that dream girl, so they string along 30-something women who they will never propose to.
This narrative does blame some men too, you know.
Although the issue isn't to prioritize blaming women, but to change things. If things are bad, and part of this relates to this idea of women not settling early enough and chasing the top, which is worse for men than for women for various reasons explained, including women dating up and benefiting from affirmative action, this is an entirety fair issue to observe. However, even this explanation does show that women also lose in some ways from this arrangement. They have less children than polled to desire, and the men they chase also often refuse to settle down. Then there are those issues that relate to both male and female behavior.
Maybe there is a room for trying to change current male behavior specifically, in addition to changes of both men and women but I agree with the article I linked that it can't come in the same one sided demand where the arrangement remains hostile to men, but only demands are made for men to step up. It can't be motivated by the same anti male feminist perspective where as you see it, men are tasting their own medicine.
At the end of the day people who care about improving things and have specific goals like a society with more healthy monogamous relationships and at least replacement fertility rate, should change things. Those who want instead to focus on retaining a sex negative feminist consensus are probably going to be an obstacle to that. Also, a level of sympathy for groups "getting a taste of their own medicine" is going to be helpful to promote the correct policies.
Pretty clear that you want to prioritize blaming men. These narratives that focuses on coming up with a story that is one sided blame game in the past to excuse a bad arrangement today have been getting very tiresome.
Men are getting a more raw deal in the current arrangement, and it is taboo to not pander to women. This doesn't mean that realizing such facts is being one sided against women. If we are ever going to move from feminist excesses, we should be willing to make such admittance, without overacting.
You are responding uncharitably to a very different post than what I promoted. One would think instead of promoting more arranged dating by friends and communities like it used to exist even in the 90s, problems with dating apps which might require possible regulation, and stopping pro female affirmative action my priority was going full Ceausescu! Such issues are not actually just focusing on blaming women and are ideas that go further than that. Now, I hinted some of these than being explicit, by mentioning them as problems. I definitely don't think our approach should be maximally coercive at expense of women...
Opposing the situation where women date up, overepresented in colleges in part due to Affirmative Action, in dating apps, there is a scenario where there is a prioritisation of minority of men and women trying to arrange dates with them, is far from what you paint. Another aspect I didn't focus as much is deferring family formation, with education being prioritised in the family formation years, in combo with an aspect of this being fear of commitment and even of raising children and birth. Where due to the influence of feminism the concept of it being taboo to say that we need more births, and also a promotion of careerism over motherhood, has also happened. Perhaps under the same feminist influence, is why you think I am talking about forcing women to have children, when I am more interested in societal perceptions, encouragement. Humanity wouldn't have survived so far if there hasn't also been an instict to have children and a desire, which we also see statistically where women want more children than they have. They used to fear birth less. And society should encourage what is good and discourage what is detrimental to it, and there is a huge gray line and debate in how to go about to do that and how far, and I am more interested in the right framework that coming with all exact solutions. I definitely wouldn't like Ceausescu like policies, which haven't been necessary in history to get above replacement rate birth rates and a society where a larger percentage of men and women were in healthy relationships.
Raising average male status and having a higher % of men and women dating, that is more widespread monogamy over a situation where women target for the top percent is not a nightmare scenario, but an improvement of the status quo. And even in that situation, as always was the case, there will exist people, including men who will lose for various reasons, including their own deficiencies.
You can't fix the problem by looking at one side; there are plenty of low-value men quite happy to have a string of kids by different women but not marry any of the mothers, and that's not the kind of "we must increase the birth rate" that people want when they discuss "why aren't people marrying and having kids?" Women may well be much too fussy and choosy now, but the shoe used to be on the other foot with men not wanting to be tied down before they got a chance to sow their wild oats and have their fun.
It isn't actually that widespread of a problem outside of the black community. It is more lack of romance and low number of children among actual couples that is the bigger issue.
I actually consider the viewpoint of:
another piece of evidence of the artificiality of this meme is that it reverses the scariness of those two possibilities. To me, a world where people come to harm because of impersonal arbitrary forces, of an inherent chaos which can be mitigated or ignored according to your risk tolerance, is a comforting world.
inherently scary and threatening. There is plenty of doublethink and celebration paralax going on.
It is a very implausible claim on the face of it.
Things happen for a reason, and in the world there are various groups with different agendas that they coordinate for their goals at expense of others, is simply an unshakeable fact.
J. Edgar Hoover saying the mafia doesn't exist is scary, because the mafia obviously exists and he is covering up for it. There isn't a reading where it is productive to focus upon the comfort of the mafia not existing, just cause Hoover says it doesn't exist. It isn't a realistic scenario. Nor of course can you blame everything that happens on you, on the mafia being behind it, but it is nonsense to come with an understanding of reality that disminishes the mafia.
When people claimed that there was no communist conspiracy, and like people here who do it with the contemporary version of this, promoted weakmen kooky scenarios of communists putting fluoride in water supply, and comedies pushed the meme "Communists are out to get our bodily fluids", and were hating on those who opposed it as right wing extremist lunatics, that was scary. We had communist sympathizers who opposed valid opposition to communists, and painted reasonable vigilance as inherently ridiculous. That is dangerous and a society with no defenses should be afraid of how things are going to degenerate towards.
A reasonable precautionary attitude and suspicion is protective. And I find a society that has a pragmatic, intellectually wise attitude towards precaution and recognizes the things it must focuses upon, to be a more comforting one. Basically, the people who are dismissive are not actually promoting a more comforting vision, but their very action of dismissing valid problems is threatening, and often a result of them sympathizing if not outright belonging in particular factions that are accused of coordinating to screw over people. The meme of a very tiny cabal is unfortunately false, because influential aspiring factions try to recruit others and do have supporters.
There isn't' a scenario where the CIA, or George Soros, or ADL and others like them representing actual factions aren't t doing plenty of nefarious things, or groups like Epstein's don't exist. Or that things like biological weapon programs of CIA, or that it is possible that covid itself might be the result of such research, are inherently ridiculous claims. The scenario we are dealing with is the one where people are covering up for them and worse vilifying those who do oppose and care as lunatics, or as extremists.
To further give my take, and don't misunderstand my tone here as implying you think otherwise, because I am more explaining my understanding than disagreeing with you:
Now, this isn't to say that any kooky claim is legitimate. Criminal conspiracies are real, and nefarious factions that might or might not fit within the definition of criminality, definitely exist without a shadow of a doubt and we know this. This doesn't mean moon landing is fake, or aliens are here. Just as we know this, we also know flat earth is nonsense. There are simply plausible claims, and implausible. Just like people who promote flat earth theory are promoting something which is nonsense, it is also credulous to be dismissive of opposition to genuine factions and pretend it is ridiculous.
In fact it is a strategy, infamously promoted by Cass R. Sunstein to flood the field with kooky conspiracy theories, to disminish suspicions on 9/11 and other issues. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585. So they both promote both implausible takes, but also to try to create weakman scenarios with real factions, like George Soros, or like the communists I mentioned. And then people are going to focus on the more sensationalist, kooky, weakman at best scenarios as a strategy of supporting the actions of genuine factions like the CIA, people like George Soros, groups like AIPAC and ADL, or even factions like cultural far leftists, or cliques of influential billionaires like Bill Ackman, etc. Or try to spin legitimate opposition as ridiculous.
Nobody is in charge is just an excuse to cover for the people with power and their actions. There are always people with influence doing things because they decided to do them. Even inaction is a decision, and someone must be held accountable for the direction things are going. It is also a promotion of lack of standards and servile attitude towards elites, and decision makers in general (which can include a decent share of the public on some issues) and even for mediocrity. Good governance requires accountability and holding people up to a standard.
We see people who also dissuade actions under much different arguments. You would have noticed people who argue that this isn't a big deal. It can't be the case where on such issues there are enough people who argue inaction because they see it as uncool, or unnecessary, that what is happening isn't a big deal, but also inaction is the best because it is hopeless.
You use the terms waging the culture war which are highly negatively charged here and associated with censorship, insults, bans etc. It could be said that is carries connotations of unfairness and impropriety, at minimum. So you are being somewhat contradictory with your language. You are saying it is hopeless but also your language is carrying some connotation that it is bad independently of that. That it is ethically superior to not take part. Which would have you share ground with those who favor no opposition because they don't think it should be opposed. Which is still taking part because demoralization preached at one side goes further than even an attitude of general disengagement.
I don't think inaction is chosen as the best, because it is the only choice available, but because it is the preference of those promoting it. The woke have been winning because they have been willing to more aggressively push their agenda through. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if one's reaction is that there is nothing to be done, while in other issues this fatalism is absent. There is in fact plenty of energy of those who could act and don't. Just like the more extreme progressives started influencing a society that was more hostile to their ideology, it is possible to win over and change the minds of others. Discouragement and demoralization of those who could have opposed it and still can be an opposition is a key aspect to the changes in the progressive intersectionality direction and its victories.
Communism and Catholicism didn't dominate in the way they could have, because there was opposition. And it isn't the Stalin situation yet. It isn't as if you supporting here regulations against the woke would get your life ruined. Of course it is completely impossible to take a genuine stand against woke/progressive intersectionalists and not be hated and vilified by their broader political faction. Or to be disliked by those who sympathize with them and oppose the opposition. There is pressure related to being seen by some as cringe to take stronger positions. But this is a different issue than having no choice. There are also those willing to like and support such opposition.
There are dynamics involved that relate to this idea of the holy left and how it is cringe and symbolically bad and symbolically far right to have a strong position against its excess. These dynamics of underestimating the dangers of far left extremism or the dangers of aligning with it, are part of the reasons that it grew in influence. So I would paint the situation as different than people being afraid of dying as in the case of the Soviet Union. Afraid of being labeled negatively and other things of that nature? Maybe. Some level of sympathy and wrong attitude to have? That too.
History isn't fixed but changes, and moreover it also is the case that even if not all can be won, some of it can be won. So my general point is that demoralized attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy. Just like communists who had remarkable successes found obstacles that stopped their continued victory, the same can apply here. And in the communists, some of their fellow travelers and even some non communists also promoted the idea of the inevitability of their complete victory. The meme of inevitability and hopeless of opposition isn't new but is probably over a century old at this point. If people had this demoralized attitude, the communists would have totally succeeded and those suffering under their boot would be living in dread until that inevitable day. Hope and courage are virtues necessary for positively changing things but are necessary also to give greater meaning with how one engages with such problems in the present.
I will say that even with people who are very busy as is very understandable with other things and don't prioritize this, they still have a choice to have more or less decisive positions on the issue, when they do engage with it. I actually am not some kind of activist, so I certainly could be doing quite more. I am against the nirvana fallacy. I just want to argue that an attitude of superiority of disengagement is the wrong attitude to have and not the morally superior attitude. It is only the perspective that helps the more aggressive party that is successfully changing things to continue escalating.
More options
Context Copy link