Karmaze
1mo ago
My position remains the same. US elections are terrible, the 2020 election was particularly terrible, Trump lost because he didn't play the game as well as his opponents, that's the way it is, suck it up and deal unless you're going to make US elections not terrible (I.E. nationwide standards and rules, or at least state-wide standards and rules)
Karmaze
1yr ago
My concern is the % of people who are going to take this thing seriously on all sides of the argument. That don't get the "wink wink nod nod" that it's all an intellectual game of sorts.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The original goal wasn't to tell people "hey, you don't like the roles/social expectations put on you? Then you aren't actually a woman/man!" but to allow women and men more flexibility in shaping their roles to their personality and temperament without anyone denying that they can live like that as women/men.
I don't think that's the intention, but when you start putting all sorts of prescriptive political, moral and aesthetic judgements on these things....
What they hell did they think was going to happen?
The problem was a lack of self-criticism where they never realized that trying to allow men and women more flexibility in terms of personality and temperament was always in conflict with the political goals of more freedom for women, or at least how they went about it focusing on universal socialization and the Blank Slate.
Karmaze
1yr ago
If anyone has a suggested reply that won't get them fired or un-personed, I'm all ears.
I think this might get you fired/un-personed faster, but here's my answer.
The problem is much less "white supremacy" or "patriarchy" and much more something having to do with socioeconomic and networking effects. The problem is that we don't really have a meritocracy right now, due to these forces. By focusing on these things, we can create something more of a meritocracy. The focus on identity, frankly, is an unconscious bias to push away from any sort of need for self-sacrifice from fixing these issues. It's not a solution to the problems that they're pointing to. Truth is, I believe that Neo-Progressive politics amplify these socioeconomic and networking effects.
Going back to the OP, this is what I believe "expanding" Critical Theory looks like. I think it looks like including these other, largely non-identitarian facets of power, privilege and bias into the equation. And I think it's absolutely a non-starter. My belief remains that people will abandon Critical Theory as a whole once that process starts (and I still do think it will start eventually). But I do think people react badly to this sort of thing, because it's seen (not necessarily incorrectly) as a demand that they set themselves on fire to keep other people warm.
That said, I think the activist Right are essentially reacting to the same human impulse.
Karmaze
1yr ago
As with other groups, this starts to read as a special pleading. "The mere fact that you're criticizing [group] at all indicates you must hate them."
To be clear, I lean more on the open side in terms of Trans Rights/identity. I think it makes sense that some people are born with gender dysphoria, and I do think transition probably is a good treatment when this happens. (That said, I do think there's a socialized version that should be treated entirely different).
But the question really has to be asked. Is this special pleading...and let's be clear, it absolutely is special pleading...enough to oppose a group? It sucks that it is this way. I'm not a fan of this. But ultimately, I do believe it's entirely rational to oppose a group/identity who is claiming this power with some semblance of success. I'm not saying it's the best way to go about things. (Nor am I saying it's the worst, to be clear, although my personality/aesthetic leans towards a more pluralistic, open approach).
But at the end of the day, I do think this type of politics drives a large amount of the identity culture warring we see today.
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
It's not loyalty to Trump, it's anti-loyalty to the regime, and opposition to perceived anarcho-tyranny.
People who see anarcho-tyranny as an existential threat, and will do ANYTHING to stop it.
For what it's worth, I think this is the prime motivation, or at least it became the prime motivation for Trump. At some point. (I'm still not a Trump supporter, because I don't see him as effective opposition, to be frank, but I'm not going to dismiss the obvious motives)
Karmaze
1mo ago
I don't even think this requires actual ideology. Nepotism gets you to the same place. And there are people that would argue (including me) that a lot of these culture wars in gaming and the media are based around nepotism, and see identitarianism as a way to distract from this.
I know at my workplace, they're having to redo the diversity training because it put nepotism on the same level as other forms of discrimination and people did not like it.
Karmaze
4mo ago
Does the middle class actually have a lower standard of living in those countries? From the way I see it, I don't think that's the case at all. Sure, relatively speaking obviously it's lower, compared to their own lower classes. I would make the argument that it's possible that prices are going to adjust to whatever the middle class can afford to pay, so all you're doing with lower class/middle class inequality is making life worse for the lower classes with little actual benefit for the middle classes. (And I really don't care about relative benefit, as I think that's not a healthy way to view things)
Karmaze
1yr ago
Internalized vs. Externalized beliefs.
In this case, it's Externalized in a way where the prof's friends should have the ability to sleep with whoever they want, but outside of that, it exists in strictly a theoretical space that people shouldn't take seriously. It's based in an understanding and active adoption of the "Who, Whom" dynamic. Or Low-Rez vs. Hi-Rez dynamics.
Karmaze
1mo ago
I actually feel like Narnia is a good example of this, in that I think that through the series, there's a very real change in it that pushes it more towards what I would consider to be propaganda, in a negative sense. Maybe that's my own tastes or whatever, but I think it makes something clear, that it's not such a cut or dry thing. It's not that certain ideas or concepts are in your book, it's how they're presented. (Although I still argue that I think it would be absurdly difficult to present the content of the last book in a way that doesn't go deep into this)
Karmaze
1yr ago
Yeah, I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem with the left per se. Note that I'm Canadian, so that's my perspective. What I'm saying that I think this really did break down in culture war terms...just because people are not yet presupposed into defusing culture war elements. Left AND Right. Like I said, it's just about giving more care to the out-group and their norms, and not believing status was an exemption to rules.
Karmaze
10mo ago
The left has a clear idea of what it means to be "woke." They believe that since American life is built on a white supremacist foundation, equality demands race-based redistribution policies. These include mandatory racial quotas in hiring, DEI indoctrination in schools and businesses, and criminal justice reforms designed to benefit POC. Race is central to how the left understands "wokeness." Everything else follows.
I actually don't think that's the case. Sure, that's the message...but in reality, note that anything that actually negatively affects them and their circles are omitted from this. I would actually argue that this "Woke"...this modern Pop Progressivism is more defined by what it isn't rather than what it is, what it excludes rather than what it includes. That is, protecting and enhancing the role of class and status privilege in our society. The focus on certain identity characteristics...first it was sex, then it was race, and now we're on gender in terms of a strict oppressor-oppressed dichotomy serves that purpose.
Because not freezing out those facets, frankly, things look awfully different. It looks a lot more like the dismantling of the managerial class, both private and public in favor of lower-class workers, giving the latter more status, power, and most importantly, money and wealth. We don't see quotas in hiring, we see pressure to increase the churn among established workers along with a post-bias process for new hiring. We see largely a dropping of those DEI departments, to be frank, to increase funding for front-line positions in terms of additional wages and manpower (so their jobs are less difficult). The criminal justice thing? You know, that would probably look like both a more responsive and a more responsible police policy. Basically what liberals (I.E. the south of center range of people flowing from materialist Marxists to Classical Liberals.) have been calling for.
I think it's a mistake to actually take these ideas at face value.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I'm long someone who has argued that a lot of the conflict regarding the culture wars is actually a personality difference between people with externalizing personalities and people with internalizing personalities, and along that spectrum, people are just going to react to things differently, and in a way that's a lot of the time inherently incomprehensible. Because talking about this, looking at it in this framework, and when talking about both your sister and your father (and note: I think there's a LOT of externalized bigotry out there. And this is a good thing. Not that the bigotry exists, but that externalized bigotry is a hell of a lot better than internalized bigotry. People just don't all that often treat individuals all that badly IMO, at least not nearly as much as you'd expect if you just looked at the discourse) those are both views that are high in the externalized part of the spectrum.
But what about those on the other end? The people with highly internalizing personalities? I think we're (and yes I'm one of them) going to generally avoid strong political messages of any type, largely because those strong messages are personally unworkable. There are exceptions of course, and it's fundamentally unhealthy, and it's going to lead to some....out-there behavior.
It's not that these things are not beliefs. It's just how different people interface with their beliefs, more than anything. Ideally, we'll get a sort of balance on these things. Truth is, we want moderates on the Internalize/Externalize spectrum running things. But I'm not sure that's usually the case, and I do think Externalizing mindsets are very effective in gaining and achieving power. This is to me a big fundamental part of the problem. It's why, as other people have mentioned, politics often does turn into this culture war without any sort of empathy or room for pluralism. And maintaining power is important...because I do think everybody can see the hypocrisy. And at the end of the day, there's always the threat that the rope of power that's preventing the sword from falling will eventually break.
Truth is, I think this is why people need to lead with workable, material models AND a concept for when it goes too far. To me, this is how you reign these things in. Keeping it vague, I think, is just playing into these personality conflicts.
Karmaze
1mo ago
Yeah, I think this is right, or at least it's my point. I actually think people hold on to dear life to the Oppressor/Oppressed frame so we don't break this image, lest we start questioning the connections and the generational wealth. The one thing I believe strongly, is we don't have the stomach for actual socioeconomic decline. Even the most Progressive of the Progressives will balk at this when it comes to they and theirs. It's OK when it's just "Billionaires", but when it comes down to specifics that are in the in-group? Nah. Not an option.
The big threat that comes from heterodox thinking on this, I think, is that we add connections to the DEI anti-list, I.E. things that will be counted in a negative sense. In that, it's not the unconnected white men that will lose out...it's the connected ones. You best be coming with your DEI proposal, a plan for your eventual exit. I think there's a reason why people go nuclear on heterodox thinking on these matters, things outside the Progressive vs. Reactionary binary, that all this stuff presents itself as a very real threat to not just the powers in a big sense, but your place and power in a more local sense.
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
There is an ocean of difference between a logical assessment of morality and the effectively-felt transformation of an individual into a moral actor who follows the moral commandments
My argument would be that there's nothing that can actively trigger that transformation and we shouldn't pretend that there is. Sure, I do think individuals can have experiences that can...but I don't think that's limited to any actual belief system...or that you need a belief system...or that any belief system has any substantial advantage over any other. But a lot of the time, these ideas are going to be strictly externalized. They'll be enforced on the other, but not internalized and actualized. And maybe that's good for a society? (Although it's not something I'm in agreement with), but I don't think we should that consider that effective in the way you're talking about here.
Edit: Important to note, please understand that I'm usually making this argument in the opposite direction, why I don't believe modern Progressive ideas do much to actually affect individual behavior of those that hold those ideas, but I think this goes for other religious beliefs as well.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Oh certainly, and I'm not saying that this message is wildly sent out, but my experiences with being told this make me comfortable with pointing this out without it being intended as boo-outgroup, as I think it's a fairly accurate statement.
My personal belief is that there's just people (including myself) who are more innately wired to internalize these ideas, and this stuff is going to be a potential danger to us. When it comes to teaching this stuff in schools, at the minimum I want "guardrails" put in place to protect vulnerable people in this regard. The other side of this, is that I don't see the actual benefit. I mean...I can understand the meaning of just "Vote Left"...but that feels very hollow. Truth is, even as someone who understands how unhealthy it is, if I thought that there was a hope of internalization being more common, I at least could see the point.
The overarching thing, is that I think the idea of socioeconomic decline, or even stagnation is too horrific to too many people for this to be even a possibility. So any sort of internalizing of the idea of "You don't deserve this, time to give it up", which I think is the message being presented to people on the outside, I think is simply a no-go area.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Furthermore why do we care so much about the psychological impacts of prostitution when we don't care about how the feelings of garbage men or plumbers are affected by their jobs?
It's much less garbage men or plumbers, (the people I know who do these things seem to be satisfied with the job itself) and much more telemarketers, retail/service employees and so on.
I don't think sex work is for everybody. And for reasons, I wouldn't make it into expected work, as in, expecting people on welfare to do it. But at the same time, I can see how it would be some people's cup of tea.
Truth be told, I think the trad-sex elements of some forms of conservatism to be well..missing the point I think. It's not that I think they're misidentifying the problem...increasing amounts of men seem to be incapable of fulfilling roles that are broadly seen as desired (even if people like to pretend that's not the case), but the problem isn't really in the sexual sphere. Because of that the solutions are all wrong. Porn/Prostitution in this way are fillers for people who have internalized ideas that either the male gender role is bad, or lack the skills to perform the male gender role.
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
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 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.
Karmaze
1yr ago
What, the Stay Puff Marshmellow Man in a Klan hat thing? No no no. I'm just riffing directly off of Ghostbusters, where I really do think people get to choose "the form of the destroyer" based upon what things they actually bother to react to. It's the best analogy to how I think these things work. At the very least, they get to amplify whatever they want to amplify into the big threat. Then Toxoplasma of Rage comes into play, and everything just gets ugly.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The best way I've heard to frame it is Pluralist vs. Authoritarian. South of Center vs. North of Center is the other way I'd put the same thing...it's entirely different than left vs. right. Generally speaking, this place is mostly South of Center, with a few North of Center people around.
But yeah, I largely agree with you, and I'm against the anti-Pluralism that's floating around, left center and right. That's largely because I'm a policy wonk, and I think the details matter and I think because of that it's essential that we can actually discuss and disagree about the issues, and not break everything down into a power-based binary.
I'll throw a bit of a wrench in this.
This process usually helps the Republicans. 2020 is a bit of an exception.
Let me explain what I'm talking about here. I've been interested in this subject since say, 2000-ish, when I came across some local articles talking about how local civic groups (generally red coded) were actually paying to upgrade local voting systems. And then the whole Bush V. Gore thing happened, and shit hit the fan and it got ugly. But it got me interested in the subject regarding Margins of Errors, and their effect on elections.
The short version is that MoE rates differ based on different forms of voting, and this difference I believe can swing close elections. I also argue, again, that generally this process helps Republicans.
What happened in 2020? Truth be told, I think both sides just played lawfare more than anything, and the Democrats won in such a way that may have swung the election. Trump wanted to discredit the mail-in votes, Biden wanted to maximize their counting. So you had a situation where the way a lot of Democratic voters were voting, actually was a way that ended up having a much lower Margin of Error than what it normally would have, because they were maximally counting all votes.
I don't believe there are any good guys in all this, to be clear.
More options
Context Copy link