Karmaze
1yr ago
My main problem with Wokeism is that it really struggles to answer whether it actually delivers what it promises to. A Buddhist monk, a nun, and an EA (as far as I know) have a good sense of what they're getting into and what they'll get from it. In contrast, the effectiveness of woke policies on actually improving the wellbeing of the disadvantaged (what its adherents actually want) runs the entire gauntlet from effective to counter productive, while cultivating a culture that has no qualms about deliberately misrepresenting the empirics.
This is the big difference between the two, in my mind. More specifically, I think Wokism (Neo-Progressivism) is a culture-focused, externalizing memeset, where EA is a highly materialist, internalizing memeset. (And I think I'm being accurate in the former...as someone who has internalized NP ideas in the past, I've been told a lot that you're not actually supposed to do that. You're not supposed to actually self-deconstruct).
If you want to get into religion, I think there are versions of religion that run that particular gamut. There are culture-focused externalizing types and materialist focused internalizing types.
I am partisan in that I think the latter, materialist route is the only thing sustainable, but I can steelman the culturalist approach, in that it's focused on politics and structures and how to change them. I just don't think it'll be successful, because human nature will twist it for personal gain.
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
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
Common? I don't know. But I think I'll go to my grave probably thinking that the best song from a f->m romantic perspective is Simple and Clean. Yes, the one from Kingdom Hearts.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0qxdwfxbONM
Honestly, I could do an in-depth analysis of the lyrics of this song, especially in terms of modern gender politics and relationships. (And what, this is like almost 20 years old at this point?) But my hand is busted so I don't feel like typing too much.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I mean, that's not a surprise TBH. Like I said, I could do an in-depth analysis of the song, and its active rejection of the Male Gender Role as a romantic value and breaking the related patterns. (Note: Even though I think it's the best for me personally, because that's my personal aesthetic, at the same time, I don't think it's realistic at all)
Karmaze
1yr ago
Actually enforcing these laws is a third rail. Largely because I think it obviously goes way beyond the question of immigration.
What we're really talking about is giving labor laws/labor-related white collar crime laws serious teeth. And I do believe that this is something that's going to be seen as a bridge too far for many people, left and right. The one thing that comes to mind, well there's two things. The first is Wage Theft, which some people say is a huge issue (and I say if it's not a huge issue it's a substantial one). And the second is Fraud/Misrepresentation. That brings me back to the Wells-Fargo scheme as the poster child for corporate malfeasance. I do think in this case investors should have been zero'd out and managers sent to prison. But people say...what about the pensions that have investments about them. And I mean, on one hand I can understand it, but on the other hand lots of people have to live off base governmental support alone. It sucks, but that's life.
But these things are the reason why I strongly believe you'll never see any sort of strong enforcement of these laws.
I'm just going to add in my take on this subject as a whole. This is what conflict between external players and internal players is going to increasingly look like in the future. I.E. people with skin in the game are going to demand that people who don't have skin in the game but take strong stances on things actually have skin in the game as well. They're going to show how the external players react when they become internal players. Now, I think there's a lot of room to criticize the details pretty much whenever this is done. That said, I don't think we shouldn't lose sight of this as well. There is a message here, I think. And note: I personally don't see this as an anti-left thing, I see this more as revealing differences between the up and the down, between the universalists and the hierarchists.
Karmaze
1yr ago
There's an alternative, maybe parallel take to this I think. J-school has been horrible for journalism across the board. It's that, instead of being Subject Matter Experts, be that Subject Matter anything from local politics to tech or whatever, people are just taught how to write more broadly. It's become an upward mobile, hierarchal structure, at least much more than it was in the past.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I am naturally a conspiratorial minded person, and yet no possible conspiracy theory could account for the mass mindlessness of modern academic "science."
It's not a conspiracy theory, but I'd argue that for example, The Toxoplasma of Rage explains this fairly well. It's an obviously controversial opinion, so as much, it's going to garner the most out-group derision/in-group status, with the concept of how those things feed into one another.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I give Curling as an example of a sport I prefer to watch the women's game than the men's. There's a distinct difference, in that the men throw much harder, and as such there tends to be less rocks in play, which makes the women's game more exciting.
I'm just getting into it, but I get the feeling Disc Golf is the same way...that the best men in the world can overpower the courses in a way the women can't, and as such, the women's game is more enjoyable for people to watch. Similar to what I've heard some people say about Tennis, where the power of the men actually hinders the enjoyment.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Similarly: the Culture war doesn't actually represent lived reality, it is just a loud form of kayfabe, especially on the Left. Women and men pair up and go about their days, regardless of the TikTok rhetoric
This is my view right here, although it goes past gender. I think when it comes to Progressive concepts of identity, you're not actually supposed to internalize/actualize them, and they live in more of a theoretical/political space. As someone who has internalized these concepts, I've been told many a time by advocates for these concepts that you're not supposed to do that. Of course, the out-group doesn't get the message on this (and how could they, considering how often they're analyzed and deconstructed using them), and it's that which creates the bulk of the conflict.
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
The main problem I have with it is the motto for it: "Every Child Maters". That's the attitude that created this mess in the first place! The motto should be something like "Mind your own damn business". But I mean...how do you express that?
Not that I'm not sympathetic to the plight of far-rural communities, right? I think there's a real problem there. But I don't think there's any sort of good solution for it, unfortunately. The best I can do is suggest help for people who want to exit those circumstances...but this is seen as essentially genocide.
(The reason I say far-rural is my understanding that near-rural reservations are doing much better in these regards)
My personal feeling is that American media of all types really lacks charisma and drive. It's less that the actor's are attractive or not or whatever, but there's a charisma and flair there that I think that is lacking from most modern American productions. And I do think while it's not driven by politics it's linked to politics. People just got more important things to think about than art. Better and easier ways to gain status and be successful.
I watched Hot Fuzz again last night. And it's a shame that we don't get more things like THAT. Everything coming out of America just seems so stale these days. I don't think it's always been this way. I think there was a time where pushing the boundaries creatively was seen as a more respectable thing to do. And I don't like talking about it that much because it just feels harsh...but I also absolutely believe it, and I don't think it's just getting older. I do like newer things. Just I tend to not like things that come out of the US. I think it's a stale culture culturally. Movies, TV, Games, Music, all of it.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I mean, I'll answer your question in a strictly political sense. Women are a protected class in a way that white people are not.
I think that's the long and the short of it. That's the core of the conflict, I think, and why this sort of thing is so nasty. We've set an expectation that asking women to give up their spaces is an anti-social thing to do. And people are fighting for that expectation to be met. But at the same time, we've also set an expectation that marginalized groups should be able to gain access to those sorts of things.
Essentially, what you're seeing is the Progressive Stack being actualized, and how it creates conflicts.
Now, I think it's more complicated than that, and there's a lot of moving parts (I strongly believe "The Movement" as they're calling it, or at least is my understanding I.E. the Gender Criticals, played a huge role over the last few decades in normalizing the Progressive Stack to the benefit of women. This alone makes things REALLY complicated I think)
I could go on a long discussion about what I personally believe...but I think it's irrelevant (something something eliminating protected classes and replacing them with a liberal focus on maximizing individual liberty and happiness). But understanding the underlying politics...that this is essentially people who model the world, on both sides, in strict oppressor/oppressed frames, and believe that the latter should gain absolute privilege over the former.
Note: This isn't all feminists or all trans people. I think this is the view of a relatively narrow slice of activists and influencers, for whom complexity over power dynamics in our society reveals some undesirable light onto the way we/they live.
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
Second question first, and then I'll get to point one.
For me....it's the danger of internalizing/actualizing Woke/Neo-Progressive/Whatever ideas. I actually think this is related to the Trans issue, although I'm certainly not anti-Trans. But I am concerned about how not putting up guardrails to prevent people from internalizing/actualizing these ideas might be causing people to develop a form of Gender Dysphoria, although I do think it's different enough. I'll be honest, I've talked to enough people in that political culture who have directly told me that internalizing/actualizing these ideas isn't intended to say this and not feel like I'm being partisan about it. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Or that they're even willing to take steps to prevent it from happening.
And that goes to point one. I think the desire for Kayfabe is just too strong. The idea that these ideas actually could be harmful if taken in the wrong way, is something that breaks Kayfabe, that stops things from being good guys and bad guys. And as such, that idea needs to be kept entirely out of the discourse. And I think that comes back around to the other reason why I think the Trans issue is all squirrely, and that's the Progressive Stack, or at least a version of it. The idea that people who are lower on the stack (or higher, depending on your PoV) are above reproach, is unfortunately far too common. This is something that does turn minority groups into abject threats, to the point where I'd argue we should look at this as a form of bigotry straight up. I think it should be seen as just as harmful as the thing that it causes. Good guys and bad guys. That's what people north of center want things to be. Pure Conflict Theory.
You mentioned below that you didn't have an issue with your possibly bisexual kid. And that's understandable, because you didn't see that as a result of this sort of self-destructive pressure being aimed at them. Might it interfere with your bloodline? Sure. But your kid is going to be just fine. So I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem literally is the stuff I mentioned above...it's not about reproductive self-destruction....it's just straight-up self-destruction. And I think most people know it, left right and center.
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.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Yeah, I agree with this. Like you, I have no philosophical objection to vaccine mandates or public health requirements, given potential externalities. But...what they said here....
"arbitrary and capricious"
Is how it pretty much always felt to me. And to me that's a huge problem. It was clear to me that this became, very quickly, something that was pure, unadulterated 100% culture war. That the "Who, Whom" question was fully in effect. I could list the whole big list of things. And I mean, I know a lot of people point to the BLM protests as THE moment, but honestly, it was clear before that.
People ask me why I think the culture war...or more specifically defusing the culture war is so important to me. And I think this is a big reason why, it's a sign I can point to. I don't think this conflict had to happen, or at least not to nearly the same intensity. I think people just had to give a bit more of a care about their out-group, and not believe that because of their status they were above the rules. I do think it's a legitimate counter-question to the whole non-compliance has cost lives argument. If that's the case (and I'm not saying it's not, to be honest), then what about the people who flaunted the rules they supported? Wouldn't it be fair to say they have the most blood on their hands for creating the current climate?
Karmaze
1yr ago
I think the other side of it, is that I think there needs to be a standard on where and when intent actually matters. I think largely that's what's being talked about here. And one of my...let's just say frustrations, is that it tends to be used in almost an entirely partisan/tribal fashion. And I don't think that's helpful in any way, shape or form. So I'm not sure where I sit on the discourse argument...just that I feel like it needs to be sorted out one way or the other. (Same way I feel about a lot of topics actually)
That said, my own personal belief is that I do think there's a LOT of recklessness in terms of certain parts of Progressive culture in terms of the effect that their culture has on people. I've said that down below, it's THE issue for me. I don't think people actually mean to hurt people....people see this in more of a political sense, maybe changing who they vote for or so what rather than something that deeply influences who people are....but I do think that not everybody gets that super secret decoder ring, as I've always put it. Note: To put this in a non-partisan frame, I'd make, and have always made the same criticism about religion, that I think that it's a problem with kids not having religion framed in a proper way either, to where they take it too seriously/internalize it too much.
Karmaze
1yr ago
You cannot trust these people, and not just limited to the media.
Yup.
It's not saying that you can't read what they right, or you can't take it into account. But frankly, anybody with any sort of actual position, no matter what that position is, happens to be facing loads of social, cultural and economic pressure in terms of their writing. People want to make it partisan...right? Act like only their opponents can be swayed by "audience capture", as an example. But nope. It all has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. No exceptions.
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
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
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.
Gender dysphoria, at least for me, is something that makes sense that it exists to a degree. I have compassion for people with it, and I think we should do what we can to best help them (within reason). My major concern about it, is something akin to what I think about body dysphoria....I'm worried about social pressure that might actually causes these various forms of dysphoria. And because of that, I'm not convinced that everybody with Gender dysphoria is best served by transitioning. Some people would be better served with understanding and dealing with those social and cultural pressures.
More options
Context Copy link