aiislove
8d ago
Oooooooh this comment is so far away from my personal suspicions and understanding of things that I'm fascinated to see it written out like this. Apparently you are anti blank slatism and I am very anti blank slate as well but we seem to have completely opposite assumptions and terminal end goals in this.
the blank slate progressive is influenced to believe in the superiority of African Americans.
I don't see this at all. In my views, blank slate progressives are the ones who absolutely prioritize the "Soft Status" of my original theory over any kind of hard status. They are first conditioned not to notice ANY physical advantages of black people over whites, and this only strengthens their conviction that the poor blacks are ONLY victims in ANY circumstance because they do worse in every single category of soft status that they (the progressives) value- test scores, iq tests, academic achievement, wage payments, career advancement, you name it. This is what gives the progressive stack its power- to paint the minorities as the eternal victim. Instead what I propose is that black people have their own strengths, which are not the strengths of the PMC class, and that this is actually completely dignified on its own terms, and to try to prop up the academic achievements of a people not predisposed to these strengths is firstly humiliating toward black people, secondarily dehumanizing toward them, thirdly a waste of time, and fourthly demeaning to the rest of humanity as well. Indeed the arrogance of the white progressive that it takes to even imagine doing this makes me queazy and begin to imagine them all as Icarus circling ever closer toward the sun without an ounce of suspicion that their wings are about to melt.
An internalized ideology of genetic blank-slatism will always lead to an intuitively-held belief in the inferiority of Whites, who are historically evil
This doesn't make sense at all to me... If you believe in blank slate you believe that whites are exactly the same as blacks. On the other hand I believe white people, and indeed Asian people, intuitively hold the belief in their inferiority when they find themselves as victims of black crime or feel anxiety when black people are around, because they are bigger scarier and more aggressive etc than smaller weaker people. My family has lived in the midwest for generations and the ones who kept living in increasingly black areas were buying more and more guns and becoming increasingly paranoid of black crime because they lived with its effects every day, meanwhile my family members who have moved out of those areas simply don't live with that fear and paranoia to the same degree.
So, that variety of white progressive who loves hip hop and considers Blacks oppressed is all but forced to consider his own group inherently inferior
I can imagine becoming this person only if I was absolutely positive that my group (whites) was superior to black people. If there was a 1000000% superior race out there and I was running around telling people how much I loved them, that would be so crazy. If there was a group that I saw as inferior and I ran around telling people how much I loved them, I would be getting so many brownie points from everybody. Which describes progressivism more accurately? I think white progressives only hold their beliefs out of a deep sense of arrogance and certainty in their own superiority, and of the inferiority of blacks. Anything that would truly point to an axis of power that holds blacks as more powerful (say in sports achievement) can only shake the foundations of the progressive worldview. They need to have a perpetual victim.
This worldview can only be corrected with the science of genetics and the belief in the superiority of civilization.
That worldview can only be corrected with more real world experience, acceptance of nature, respect for humanity and differences, and less ridiculous hubris, rather than a thin veneer of science and shallow morals that teach us something outside the realm of physical experience and history.
aiislove
10d ago
My rankings are subjective and I'm not married to any of them. If we all filled out the chart with the same people we'd probably all have everybody in (slightly to wildly) different positions, especially considering different people move throughout their lives and as others pointed out can depend on the situation or social surroundings.
Also, come on. Is Ellen really more powerful than Oprah? No one thinks that.
I think that, if I was serving them in some context I'd probably give creepy Ellen whatever she wanted while I'd be inclined to openly roll my eyes in Oprah's face. I think Ellen commands more respect than Oprah based mostly on their vibes and appearances. Oprah seems more haughty and irritating while Ellen seems like she'd keep the interaction on a more professional level which translates to more soft power.
aiislove
10d ago
Lots of women have the same thing going on - they may want to be rich, clever, happily married etc. but in the moment they are far more emotionally validated by evidence that they are hot.
Are you sure about this? Do any women on this site want to share their experiences? I genuinely don't know if women think this way, because if I swap the genders it seems 100% true but I suspect women are less obsessed with being hot than men are, and are happier with soft status qualities like wealth, cleverness and happiness in marriage and so on. Personally as a man I don't really care about the secondary soft status I just want to be hot and loved for my intrinsic qualities rather than any sort of skill, virtue or prowess
aiislove
10d ago
Ah, yes, I just skimmed this page but it seems like this is very much what I was trying to describe. I was wondering if anyone else had teased it out before, I'll look into this. Thank you
aiislove
10d ago
I am not married to the quadrant names, I had considered Barbarian for that quadrant but thought the term was more politically charged than Caveman which is more politically neutral so I went with that one
aiislove
10d ago
Oops, I meant Charles III. My bad
Not all starlets migrate that way, I even said that Britney went from Princess to Whore and is either at Whore or Hag. Anyone can go any way on the chart depending on the way they move in terms of hard and soft power, it's just easier and more common for people to follow a certain path, because of age and experiences that lead to a certain direction of progression. You could say it is "the same status" in the sense that they are on the chart in the same way or you could say it is "not the same status" in the sense that it is different qualities leading to different positions in different times of their life etc.
aiislove
10d ago
Try a VPN or something? If anyone knows a better alternative than imgur I'll reupload there instead
aiislove
10d ago
The multi-dimensionality of soft status that modern society presents is a shimmering hologram that all collapses into nothing in my lived experience. I never feel truly gratified by soft status at the end of the day, whether it's through my intelligence or social class or anything else. Only the hard status power gratifies me really.
I do think that there is dignity in soft status if you can not compete at hard status- like a relative I know who suffered from cancer and lost hard power, I don't want to take away her dignity in soft status. I will admit that it is valuable in that way. I think I spent too much of my earlier life seeking soft status without seeing hard status and am overcorrecting toward hard status now.
aiislove
10d ago
Status operates on two axes, and in slightly different ways for men and women.
Refer to these two charts.
Hard status for men is measured in physical power that exists as an extension of nature. This is, essentially, the kind of power that the man alone in the jungle wields. This is measured in a combination of physical strength, height, masculinity, physical presence, muscularity, weight, aggression, age, and any other number of tangible, measurable physical characteristics.
Hard status for women is similar, in that it reflects a tangible physical reality, however the basis of judgment is different. For women, hard status is measured in sex appeal, beauty, charisma, charm, cuteness, fertility, height, size, and any other number of tangible physical characteristics.
Soft status for men and women operates the same. Soft status refers to anything outside of the physical that is useful for manipulation of others. Money, class, intellectualism, luxury beliefs, high status values, intelligence, persuasion, word and resource access and manipulation- these are many of the qualities that make up soft status.
I’ve already filled in the charts with some examples of people and where they sit. I have mostly just imagined the most extreme types of each person and then filled in with random interesting people between them- you could move the 0,0 point somewhere else and categorize people differently if you have a different set of examples but these are the people who came to mind as most illustrative of my theory.
For men, the four quadrants are labeled The Saint, The King, The Outcast, and The Caveman.
The Saint represents a man with high soft status but low hard status. The most extreme example is Stephen Hawking, a quadriplegic whose life work was entirely abstract. Religious men with modest physicalities are other Saints. Liberace, a man with little sex appeal but lots of luxury, is a Saint. Anderson Cooper and Elijah Wood are pretty men, though Anderson’s class lends him higher soft status compared with Elijah whose height and hobbitness place him lower on the scale of soft status.
The King is a man with high soft status as well as high hard status. He is best exemplified today by Prince William, who is strapping and, being next in line to the throne of the UK, very high in soft status. Trump is a King, despite the abstract hatred of him from intellectuals, because his vibe says King. King Charles II, a bit old and wishy-washy, is literally a King, but less so than others. Certain elegant men and admired athletes as well as traditional father figures also lie in the King quadrant.
The Caveman is someone who has high hard status but low soft status. The most extreme example is Fred Flintstone (or really, a stereotypical caveman might be better, but I couldn’t think of one.) He is very powerful, but his power is entirely physical, being forced to work under the higher soft status boss in his day job. Strong, violent athletes with little soft power belong in this quadrant. Handsome actors without much cache, powerful Middle Eastern men often belong in this category (from the viewpoint of white christendom.)
The Outcast is a man with low soft status as well as low hard status. The most extreme examples are Adam Lanza and TJ Lane- but any school shooter will do. Michael Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer also fit the bill. Most trans men, short and cuddly, lie somewhere in this area. They are unthreatening to power, generally.
The quadrants for women are The Queen, The Princess, The Hag, and The Whore.
The Queen has high soft power and low hard power. She is best exemplified by Ellen Degeneres: Creepy, mannish, cold, vampiric, and really unsexual. Oprah, Anna Wintour and Tilda Swinton are similarly Queens. Girl bosses like Laverne Cox and Nicki Minaj exist as Queens. Bette Davis is a queen on account of her unfortunate looks. Betty Friedan is close to the Hag, but her luxurious beliefs in feminism push her over the edge into Queen territory.
The Princess has high soft power and high hard power. Kate Middleton is the best example of the Princess today. She is literally a princess, with beauty and soft power. Jackie Kennedy and Melania Trump are also Princesses. Andreja Pejic, a trans woman, could be in a similar position to Laverne Cox, but is more beautiful and gets less points for diversity, and is thus further to the right and further down on the chart.
The Whore is a woman high in hard power but low in soft power. Internet celebrities Danielle Bregoli (You remember her- the Catch Me Outside Dr. Phil girl) and Woahvicky (known for her bizarre accent) are the most extreme examples of the Whore- they are sexy and don’t have much soft status to speak of. Snooki, Mae West, Trisha Paytas, Marilyn Monroe- they all fall somewhere in this quadrant.
The Hag is a women with low hard power and low soft power. I had a hard time thinking of real life examples of these women, as generally, the lower a woman has in hard power, she tends to be raised up in terms of soft power by other women. Andrea Dworkin is quite ugly and I’d place her in Hag territory even though her feminist beliefs are very high status for women. Fictional characters like Strangers with Candy’s Jerri Blank and Reno 911’s Trudy Wiegel are good examples of the Hag.
Where would you place Meghan Markle? I don’t really like her. I could see her in any quadrant of the four, so I put her near the middle.
Throughout our lives, we may change position on the chart. For example, Christina Aguilera in her earliest roles on the Mickey Mouse Club, was a Princess, who then moved to Whore territory upon release of her video Dirrty, and has since ascended to Queen status as a 44 year old plus size girl boss. Similarly, Britney Spears started out as a Princess, then moved to Whore status as she was a bit older, and now is probably somewhere between the Hag and the Whore depending on how hot you find her. Pamela Anderson spent most of her life in the Whore category, but recently stopped wearing makeup and has aged in to the Queen status.
Women tend to move from right to left on the chart as they age, but men tend to move from the left to the right until they reach their mid to late 50s after which they tend to move to the left as well.
Women who marry multiple times tend to pick second and third husbands who are farther to the right than earlier husbands. They may be either higher or lower in soft status, but later partners are almost always higher in hard status. This often frustrates earlier husbands who see their ex-wives with men who may be lower in soft status but higher in hard status, and who place too much emphasis on their own soft status at the expense of their own hard status.
I am sure that, as a man, winning at hard status is gratifying, while winning at soft status feels dorky. But I want to know if women feel the same way or if the opposite is true. Do women feel more gratified being Ellen Degeneres or more gratified being Marilyn Monroe?
If I were to rank the women’s quadrants, I believe you’d want to be the Princess the most, followed by the Queen, followed by the Hag, and then the Whore. The Whore really has no dignity, she is defined entirely by the man or the view of men toward her. At least the Hag gets to retain some dignity of owning her rejection in the man’s eyes. Perhaps that is a masculine projection on my part. The Princess is more dignified than the Queen because she gets to retain powers of seduction toward men which is valuable.
I would most want to be in the King quadrant as a man. After that, I would rank the Caveman as the second most appealing. Between the Saint and the Outcast it is a hard decision- I at least view the Outcast as having some dignity in that he’s doing it his way, regardless of everyone else’s desires. The Saint seems smarmy and gross, as much as I’m drawn to be Liberace I find the quadrant somehow more degrading than any other.
Status and Homosexuality
I’ll keep this short because I’ve rambled about this enough on themotte in the past. As a younger gay man, I didn’t understand why the soft status game was so ungratifying. I could be Liberace with little to no effort on my part. But Liberace- and gay men like him- have little to no actual status among gay men. Even entirely destitute gay men aren’t charmed by the money of a rich man. Likewise, when you are the rich man, it is not gratifying to charm a man with your money. The average gay man may pay for sex once or twice in his twenties, or when he comes into money, but he’ll find that it doesn’t gratify the ego in any way that matters. It feels cheap, fake, and dishonest to wield power in this way. Only through hard power- and earning respect, love and status through hard power- can you feel good about yourself and your place among men.
Status and Trans
So, how does being trans work in the terms of my system of power? MTF Transwomen (people born as men who become women- in my opinion, they are effectively women, because as a gay man I find them as unattractive as women- and similarly I view FTM men as men, because I find them as attractive as men, and in fact having little to no external genitalia to compete with is a plus, not a minus) are men who are pumping the soft power hierarchy at the expense of their hard power. They have chosen not to compete at the hard power game of men, but rather to compete at the hard power game of women, and the soft power game of women, which operates the same as the soft power game of men. In one way, the MTF can only win when he transitions, because his soft power explodes, often placing him from Outcast on the men’s chart into Queen territory on the women’s chart. But she is doing this at the expense of her male hard power. I had trans ideation when I was younger, but the only thing keeping me from becoming trans was the sense that it would never gratify what I really was seeking, which was the hard power status of being a real man. I don’t know if the medication of MTF women can tone down this desire inside- perhaps it can, and perhaps that’s fine if you’re living it, but as an outsider to me it is sad.
Most FTM men begin as women who are in the Hag category. Upon transition they give up their status as Hags and generally swap for an equal place on the male hierarchy which is the Outcast. They have little movement and thus are not as politically threatening to anyone.
In high school I as a boy would grow my hair long and paint my nails and act effeminately because it gave me soft status. When you do this you are increasing soft status at the expense of hard status. The reaction from other boys toward me was a mixture of apathy from those boys who didn’t mind other boys losing hard status, or an irritation at the gaining of soft status at the expense of someone’s masculinity which they were protective of in themselves. I no longer act effeminate because I don’t want to degrade the hard power of myself which is more difficult and more gratifying to harbor in myself.
Status and Race
From my observations, there seem to be differences between races. If we were to chart the people of all races on my chart, it would look something like this. There are many outliers who would rank differently, and you could rank people within the races among themselves, but on average I view the relative status of the races in this way.
Asian people tend to be the highest in soft status and lowest in hard status. Black people tend to be highest in hard status and lowest in soft status. Middle Eastern people are not terribly different from white people in these terms. Latino people may fall anywhere closer to white or black or Asian depending on their particular mixture of genes and nationality, status within their own group and so on. I left out other groups because I either have little to no experience with them or their populations are very small compared to the ones I’ve charted.
The tendency in society is to collapse the nuanced, two-axis reality of status and power into just one hierarchical stack. The left believes that you can do this with race: The whites are above the Blacks, so we must raise the Blacks to make up for the systemic disadvantages that Blacks face. Meanwhile, this fails to account for, in my opinion, the more accurate view of power which observes hard as well as soft status. This is why the left’s favoritism of blacks and their attempts at raising their soft power irritates me so much as a white man- they are already on average above me on the hierarchy of hard power, why must they also be dragged above me in the hierarchy of soft power? In an ideal state of nature, they would be above me in hard power, and I could accept that as my natural talents and powers of soft power position me above them in my own way that is balanced with nature. Having my comfort of soft power dragged away is on some level humiliating to me.
Basically, I don’t think the left- or society- needs to account for any difference between races because they already average out to approximately the same and even then there is a dignity in simply respecting the differences rather than trying to account for them.
——
When I was a kid I used to wonder why my older family members would spend so much time watching nature documentaries. The older I get the more I realize that it’s because human society operates so often on the same exact level as nature documentaries do- we just have an extremely complex web of distractions overlaid on top of the underlying hard status game. Disentangling the two reveals a lot.
I had a really hard time naming the two axes. First I had "male power" and "female power" but it became so conflated when I began to imagine two different charts. Then I thought of calling "hard status" "power" and "soft status" "status" but it wasn't exactly right either. I kept changing it, ended up with "hard status" and "soft status" and thought it worked well enough to illustrate the point and just went with it.
I said as much in another comment here, I wasn't really claiming and omniscient point of view in my ranking, things are highly subjective in general even as I try to disentangle something universal
More options
Context Copy link