Karmaze
1yr ago
How much energy do you want to invest in trying not to give money to your political enemies?
I don't look at these things in this light. I don't think it's about political enemies at all. I think it's more so, don't spent time/energy/money on people who think that you're a problem that needs to be solved. It's not because you're rewarding them/encouraging them/providing them ammo. It's because eventually they're going to pull the rug out from under you.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I raised the issue. It's something I believe about the whole thing...not that he never existed however.
I think it's fair to say that the way things shook out, there were essentially "two camps" in the atheism sphere after that. You had what became the Atheism+ Progressive camp, and you had what I'd call the "south of center" liberal/libertarian camp. I'm assuming there's not going to be many conservatives hanging around atheist conventions. Nothing personal against conservatives intended here. I just think there's so few it's hard to even say there's a camp.
The way Elevatorgate was used, I really do think, was to redirect power and influence away from the liberal/libertarian camp towards the Progressive camp. However, I strongly believe what makes the most sense is that "Elevatorguy" was actually from the Progressive side, not the Liberal/Libertarian side. Which of course, would look very poorly on that particular circle.
That's my take at least.
Karmaze
1yr ago
In that first bit, I notice how they scooted RIGHT by a discussion about class. Nope, can't talk about that, have to go right to race. I'll stick with my stance that the current favor of various forms of monodirectional power dynamics (and let me just say the assumption of this is absolutely a form of bigotry going in every which way) is exactly to freeze out these discussions. Because when you add class inequality to the discussion, suddenly, it changes from trying to gatekeep and control the pipeline to give the people you want an advantage over the outgroup, it suddenly becomes a talk about how to manage and encourage relative socioeconomic decline (I.E. term limits for jobs, end of tenure, catering your programs to the lower classes, like Ivy League schools opening up sections dedicated to teaching trades to local people) among the in-group. And that's a huge third rail.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I would argue that pretty much all the activists involved are hoisted by their own petard. That this is something that simply can't be actually resolved through Progressive structures based on Critical concepts of power, and that at every single level, these models of power/culture/identity are the cause of the conflict.
Karmaze
1yr ago
One aspect I haven't seen discussed is that this is the same guy who was behind the controversial decision to buy Wytham Abbey for 15 million pounds (see here). In light of current events, it sure looks to me like EA officials decided to blow millions on a luxury venue in Oxford in order to impress women.
To make it clear, I'm referring to this part in particular.
Karmaze
1yr ago
And even after this fairly comprehensive vindication of Singal, I doubt a single person on the other side actually had their mind changed or their priors shifted an iota.
This is something that's never going to happen, largely because of Kayfabe politics. I don't think we're going to see activists on this give up a single inch. And I mean...I do think objectively there's room to give given up, right? I think it's OK to say that it's bad if there's no assessment done and that shouldn't happen. I think that's giving up an inch. And that's in line with what Singal's argument is for what should happen, is high-quality individualized care.
It's possible maybe this could become a new windmill for me to tilt at, and maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it strongly. I don't think they can give up a single inch. Because an inch isn't an inch. It's actually a mile.
I do think there's an underlying question that's being ignored here. Can exposure to Progressive/Academic models of sex, gender and power or at least, the popularized crude forms, result in Gender Dysphoria or something approaching such? Not universally, of course. But are there people susceptible to this in a way, where exposure to these things might result in significant mental and emotional trauma?
Because I'll be blunt. If we're talking about a recommendation for support or therapy, largely speaking I do think this is the road it's going down more often than not. And if that's the case, if this is something that we should be aware of....then maybe the good guys are not always the good guys. Maybe there needs to be some level of care, or safeguards or whatever put in place. Maybe the world is more complicated than babyfaces and heels, of good guys and bad guys, of white and black.
Karmaze
1yr ago
So socialism is particularly attractive to High-IQ people who are ill-suited to a capitalist society (intellectuals, journalists, other wordcels, etc.). These people can then recruit various types of resentful underclass people (addicts, generally stupid or lazy people, ethnic and sexual minorities, weirdos of all kinds) who, since they have nothing to lose, are much more loyal and politically active than the people who are content with the system as it is.
As far as I'm concerned, this is THE challenge for Socialism/Communism, and I say that as someone on the left. How do you make a leftist society that isn't run by the Managerial Class (because that's who we're talking about here) for the Managerial Class? There's a reason why I actually think a lot of the modern leftism is "speedrunning" Communism past the utopian for the workers stuff, straight to the "We are the new elites" phase, or at least that's what it wants.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Trans rapists don't invalidate every single trans person. They do cast a really negative light on the thoughtlessness of some significant strand of trans activism, who prefers they just be swept under the rug and never figured out an "acceptable" answer.
I'd go as far as to say as this should be entirely what we talk about. This isn't meant to throw any sort of shade at trans people, to make it clear, the intention is exactly the opposite. In fact, I think the argument should be made that this really doesn't have anything special to do with Trans people.
Someone on Twitter asked an interesting question, which was essentially, why is this topic so fraught? And the best answer I can give, is that it's the first topic (maybe) to be "born" in the forge of Postmodernism and Critical models of power at a popular level. Sure, they existed in academia before this, but I do think there was this divide between these ways of thinking and a much more transactional, retail, boots on the ground level productive politics. Frankly, it's possible that the other candidate for the "First topic" is COVID, and I do think you see a lot of the same patterns in that debate as well.
But this creates an activism, where anything less than everything is nothing. And I think that's what we see. And I'll be blunt. Even though I do think, on an instinctive level, that brain-body gender/sex mismatches make sense at the extremes...we're talking about more than that now. We're talking about people who internalize these Critical models of sex/gender and develop something approaching gender dysphoria (ROGD). We're talking about people who do this not from a gender, but from a sexuality PoV (AGP). And frankly, we're also talking about narcissists and sociopaths who understand the underlying power dynamics that come from these Critical models and seek to exploit them.
Covering for the latter is just going to drag down the whole thing. But that breaks kayfabe. That all the bad people are on one side and all the good are on the other. Frankly, same with the Critical model stuff.
That's where we are, I think.
Karmaze
1yr ago
FWIW, my argument is that the topic itself doesn't really matter. And because of that you don't need self-policing, when it's all about power, essentially.
Modulo conflicts like the truscum-tucute thing.
I wonder if that's going to make a comeback and break it up. Like I said, I think we're talking about at least 4 substantially different phenomenon here, and frankly, I think 2 of the 4 are much more innate than the others.
Karmaze
1yr ago
To be frank, I think Gamergate was the "Dirty Bomb" that blew this model/culture of Critical Theory into the world. Or at least the reaction to such. It existed, to a degree, before that, but that's when I think it became fairly well known. So, when I'm talking about the culture of Postmodernism/Critical models of power, I do think that begins in 2015 or so. Maybe some people might look back to what happened to Operation Wall Street and take that into account..and they're not incorrect there to be clear, but I don't think support for that hit any sort of influential mass until the mantle was taken up by parts of the media/activist base, because it was being actively challenged for its own particular power/influence dynamics. Critical theory/Postmodernism is an easy "antidote" to those criticisms.
That's my opinion at least. And I think it's fairly obvious that Trans status as a mainstream issue came after that point.
But yeah, I think there's a reason that some people/communities hold on to Postmodernism/Critical Theory like a life vest that if they release they're going to fall down into the depths. And let me be clear...I don't think that's entirely wrong. I do think there's a legitimate self-interest at play here, even if frankly on the other hand I couldn't care less about said self-interest.
Karmaze
1yr ago
All in all, I'm leaning in the direction of these being coordinated hit-pieces than an actual investigation, but time will tell.
I wouldn't go as far as to say as its coordinated. But I do think there's something going on here.
My personal opinion is that this is a huge threat to the kayfabe structure. I.E. the model that essentially the left (or at least parts of the left) are good guys and everybody else is the bad guys. Why do I think that? Because I really do believe once we start drilling down into this, we're going to find that at some level, the current in-favor models of identity and power are simply not healthy for people. And it's not just this one issue, to be clear. I think across the board, I see a real defensiveness when this comes up. That postmodern deconstruction is simply not healthy for individuals or society.
And to make it clear, I'm someone who actually believes in Trans identity. I think that it makes sense that some % of the population is going to have an innate sense of gender dysphoria. And they should be cared for in the best way possible, including transition. But I don't think that's all that's going on. I think there are people being victimized by this postmodern deconstruction. And I also think there are people out there exploiting it.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Yeah, I saw the anti-CBT stuff. I also noticed that it really set off the anti-anti-woke people that I tend to see around (I.E. the people who are not particularly woke, but have a strong dislike for communities like this). I would agree this is fairly similar.
One example that really struck me happened way back in 2016 after Trump got elected, and a lesbian I knew was literally shaking for fear that it would be at most a couple of years before she would be sent to death camps.
The thing is, some people just don't get the message that you're not supposed to actually believe this, that this is just hyperbole and exaggeration. That's along the same lines of what I'm talking about, which I do think is somewhat narrower than the anti-CBT stuff, but I also think the effects are substantially more drastic. And the other part of it, to be blunt, is that I think there are people who are just "wired" in such a way to take things seriously. I'd identify as that type of person. It's not that I'm overly serious...it's just that I strongly believe you should live whatever beliefs you have. That you should say what you mean and mean what you say.
Down below there's a thread about living rather than professing your values. That assumes that said values/ideology is actually meant to be lived anyway. Which in a lot of these cases, I truly don't believe is the case.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The vast majority of 'dating advice' young men are given (by the mainstream liberal feminist zeitgeist) is absolutely terrible and only land them in situations like this if they follow through with it.
Yeah, this is "Nice Guy Syndrome", something that absolutely I would argue is pushed by that zeitgeist, combined with the modern sexually libertine environment. This is what you get. Actually, it's not even that unreasonable if you ask me, although certainly it's not a route I'd actually recommend, depending on what advice/worldview you're seeing. Let's say that you wanted to be in a relationship with someone, you might feel the need that you need to prove your sexual abilities in a non-committal way. Thus, FwB.
There's always going to be danger for the neurodivergent who take the world at its word rather than trying to read between the lines.
Karmaze
1yr ago
So, I was going to respond to the above poster, but I think I'll throw it in here.
I don't think this is actually about women. I think this is something much broader, in that I think models based on monodirectional concepts of power (I.E. "Critical") are all essentially shittests. It's harmful to people who actually take this stuff seriously. (Been there, done that, got the t-shirt) But I don't think it's any different if it's sex/gender or race or sexuality or what have you. It's all essentially the same effect. It punishes people who actually take it seriously, rewards the people who have the super-secret decoder ring that tells you to ignore this stuff (or have the personality to brute force through it).
Truth is, this is my argument against teaching Critical-based ideas in school. I think kids are more susceptible to internalizing these ideas, to significant harm I think. If steps were taken to protect against this, I'd be OK with teaching it as one viewpoint along-side others (I'm a liberal individualist as an example).
But there's no ethical way to live and be an oppressor. And I think because the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy takes up so much oxygen for reasons, it leads to things like this happening, because we're not guiding men down a proper, healthy path.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm happily married, although I got incredibly lucky that I found someone who came after me. But our marriage got a lot better when I started to push the Critical models out of my worldview and started ignoring the inherent shittests.
It's almost if people believe that men can't catch feelings. What I mean by this, is that there's the idea that men have to (and are able to) make their decision about what bucket the relationship is going to go in right off the bat.
I have to say, the more I think about this type of situation the more misandry I see in it. Not that I think the guy was correct in this case, to be clear. I can understand why the guy did it, and while wrong, I do think it's understandable. But I think even forget the FwB thing. If he asks her out on a date, which is the more conventional thing....this situation is maybe what...80% of what it is? I don't think it's THAT sizable of a difference.
Again, I think there's a lot of misandry, and yes, objectification of men involved here.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I think he fucked up. But let me say this.
If your social media...and hell...maybe your social experience tells you that FwB relationships are very normal, maybe in that case you think that maybe that's LESS intrusive than asking someone out on a date. I can easily see how someone would think this. Again, I still think that's bad advice, and a dumb thing to do.
(I'll be honest, I don't understand how anybody can ever ask anybody out on a date, but that's just me)
Karmaze
1yr ago
The we is society as a whole.
What I would argue, is in the effort to eliminate the male gender role, activists have created this thing where we're not helping men actually succeed the male gender role in a healthy, sustainable way. (Note: Just because I think we're not getting rid of the male gender role doesn't mean I think the same thing about the female gender role. I absolutely do not) That's what we need to do, that's IMO what the guy in this story did wrong. But I also think that so much of this relies on unstated assumptions that IMO are entirely unfair.
Karmaze
1yr ago
While the difference between those two definitions seems academical as the resulting status is pretty much the same, there is a meaningful difference in that it changes completely the direction you approach them from.
I think this is correct. That said, I understand why somebody might not be aware of that distinction.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The problem is that there's very little to no interest in actually getting rid of the male gender role. It's too useful, both on an individual and on a societal level. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's arbitrary....I think there's a historical development based around material needs....but certainly it's something that COULD be changed if we had the gumption. We just don't.
I don't say that as a macho type man either, truth be told, I had to work pretty hard to get at least somewhat decent both at actually performing the male gender role, and frankly, believing that it's in any way ethical to do so. I'd personally be better off if we jettisoned it. But I think asking men to basically ignore the incentive structures that exist in society is a big part of a lot of the social problems we're seeing today.
Karmaze
1yr ago
As someone who does think that the "New Atheism" community played a pretty outsized role in shaping what basically makes up modern progressive culture, I would almost certainly say that the Atheism part of it is largely irrelevant. It's more of a coincidence than anything else, it could have happened in pretty much any other online community (I do think social media plays a role in this) that leaned left.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The claim is that wokeism was only able to rise so quickly and so broadly was due to the effects of atheism on the masses, not that they had the same origins/goals/motivations.
Yeah that's wrong. At least in my mind.
I think it rose quickly and broadly because it provides a high-dose method of being on the "right side of history" while minimizing actual cost for yourself and the people around you.
Karmaze
1yr ago
It might be in my view of what Wokism actually is. To me, I think it's a way to make a better world in a way that doesn't threaten, and maybe enhances status/class based advantages. There's nothing inherent in that, I think, that goes against belief in a higher deity.
For what it's worth, Calvinism is one of those religious beliefs I do have a serious problem with, in the same light as I look at Wokism TBH. And the truth is, I don't see any reason why much of the memeplex couldn't come from a liberal Calvinist community.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I'd like to discuss the best ideas my political opposition has, but I'm increasingly concerned that "signal boost liars" is the best idea my political opposition has--or, if not their best idea, maybe just their most pragmatically effective.
This is going to sound harsh, but I do think it's accurate, in that I think there always has been a sense that the best argument actually is "We will have the power". You know...that whole "Right Side of History" thing? And sometimes that "will" in the first phrase gets lost, so it's just "We have the power". And with that comes all sorts of Moral License and all that. In reality, we're talking pure Toxoplasma of Rage.
I really am very progressive myself, as well as liberal. Small-p. But I do think the full-throated embrace and exploitation of post-modernism is worrying for a whole host of reasons. Again, I'm not even opposed to post-modernism in a reflective, sober perspective. But what we're seeing here is something more like a search for power. The further you can go, and get away with if not outright cheered and supported the more pressure it puts on people to adopt your views/join your group.
Note, this applies to parts of the right as well, I think.
I think the thing about Tate and co, is that they represent what essentially is an aspirational culture these days. Represent isn't exactly the correct word, but I'm not sure how else to put it. But I think they're reflecting a view based on a certain "Social Media Yuppie" perspective that's coming out of a few large cities, frankly, London is the biggest example here I think. Where they're wrong of course, is that the SM Yuppie mentality, isn't as common outside of these places as these people think. But that doesn't mean that it's not influential either. I do think there's reasons why people see this as pretty much the peak of attainable status right now.
And I think people do see traits of SM Yuppie culture "bleed out", and I think there's a reaction to it.
I've always argued that the manosphere as a whole (and it's a bunch of different parts and I acknowledge that) should be more focused on teaching people to avoid red flags. And I understand avoiding these red flags are tough, because again, these are relatively high-status baddies we're talking about here. But still...you don't want to deal with the narcissistic traits here. Just say no. It's not worth the headache. But educating men about potential red flags has always been seen as misogynistic by people who well...promote and sell those flags, giving them out to women to be honest.
And then there's the concern that this SM Yuppie culture will be picked up on by your partner in an existing relationship. What do you do then?
Anyway, I think largely that's what this is all about. I think you can avoid it if you want to, especially if you recognize status pressures and try your best to avoid them. But that doesn't necessarily make it easy or without cost.
More options
Context Copy link