domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
ABigGuy4U
17m ago
The number of specific cancellation incidents was fairly low compared to Hollywood and politics. But I do think that was the moment when the vibe turned against the industry. For the twenty years before that, the left basically gave pornography an indulgence to be a morality-free zone due to the industry’s valuable service to the left as a battering ram against Christian morality. Even stuff like extreme racist themes and violence against women was given a pass in the name of kink. The right mostly left the industry alone too because the right was trying to shed the Moral Majority fuddy-duddy image that was beginning to become a liability for them in the 80s. After 2016, suddenly both the left and the right decided they weren’t willing to tolerate all this skeezyness anymore. You never saw much direct action about this because the porn industry is very attuned to cultural vibes and it very quickly moved to internally clean up its own image a bit, comics-code authority style.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
25m ago
This is the meaning of "woke" that is then applied to "the woke right" when it begins engaging in similar anti-free-speech behavior for partisan gains.
There's a slight problem here, because from my point of view the Jedi are evil "anti-woke" are the ones doing this. Trivially: who's the one whinging to Joe Rogan that he shouldn't have so many people with [insert opinion] on?
srf0638
25m ago
I think most women consider the idea of various forms of sex work as a fantasy in much the same way that most men vaguely fantasize about violent crime, or of running off to work on an oil rig.
Whoa
WandererintheWilderness
30m ago
'Woke' is having become awakened to the 'reality' that all differences in hierarchy are unjust (…) the only explanation is systemic injustice. Someone must have done something evil to exploit someone else -- there's no other way people could end up in such different positions.
These strike me as different claims. Wokeness as originally defined was really more about the second one. The moral truth that inequality is unjust was taken for granted from the start; it needn't be "awakened" to. Woke in the original sense was very much about "awakening" to the pervasive-systemic-oppression theory of why inequality of outcomes arises. The two different claims can be believed independently. And more importantly, believing both still doesn't inherently require you to be in favor of censorship/cancel culture.
I think at this point "woke" in colloquial Internetese long ago ceased to have anything to do with the original meaning, and means something more like "leftist Political Correctness thought-policing" whether it's about racial equality or anything else. This is the meaning of "woke" that is then applied to "the woke right" when it begins engaging in similar anti-free-speech behavior for partisan gains.
hydroacetylene
32m ago
Technically, the pantex plant in Texas builds nuclear weapons.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
35m ago
My view of the Dissident Right is that it's an evolutionary memetic algorithm generating a post-postmodern Right Wing. But it will be regarded as Fascist by conservatives and Woke alike, whether or not that is the proper academic use of the term.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
40m ago
"Matt Walsh posts Swastika on Timeline" is not a controversy that someone generally wants to be involved in.
On the other hand, if the sharks smell blood, they'll rip you to shreds. "Never apologize" has been the standard advice by people who observed these controversies with any amount of care, right-wing or otherwise.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
43m ago
The problem here is that the definition of Fascism is functionally non-liberal, Right Wing.
In the broad popular imagination, it might be, but fascism is a distinctly modernist/progressive ideology, and vast swathes of the Dissident Right have no love for modernity.
But the point is that poking the eye of the Boomer Consensus with edgy stuff like does not mean Walsh is arguing for Nazism.
A distinctly shortsighted tactic, that ruins the discourse for anyone trying to take things seriously, including those on the DR.
It's just flaunting a disrespect for norms enforced by Conservatives and Woke alike.
Why not just make jokes about cheddar cheese like other normies?
In fact that would be my criticism of Walsh, he's trying to have a foot in both camps.
I'd imagine that someone as high up on the influencer ladder as he is, would know it's not a game that you can play sustainably.
Stellula
49m ago
Recently Douglas Murray went on Joe Rogan and had a conversation with Dave Smith about, among other things, the responsibility of influencers with huge platforms to the public. Smith and Rogan took the familiar position of "muh marketplace of ideas", while Murray believes that people with so much influence should be a bit more selective, because exposing the public to bad ideas will lead to some part of the audience uncritically adopting them.
Douglas Murray spent the first, like...hour of the podcast talking about how Darryl Cooper, the noted Winston Churchill historian, had spent his career tearing down Churchill and "just asking questions" about why Darryl is devoting so much of his time to focusing on Churchill.
Except in reality: Cooper spent about 2 minutes making a throwaway comment about how he takes a devil's advocate position about Churchill with his friend, a big Churchill fan, as a way of riling him up and playing around with him. Douglass couldn't do 10 minutes of actual research into this topic before then spending an hour talking about how only experts, people who really understand the topic, should be allowed to talk about things publicly. Darryl Cooper in reality is a podcaster who puts out 30+ hour long series about things like: The Formation of Israel, The Civil Rights Movement/The People's Temple/Jim Jones, World War 2 from the perspective of the Germans[1], The History of Slavery, and The horror of war (a standalone episode called "The anti-humans".
[1]: His whole point with this, stated explicitly, is that Germany didn't just wake up one day and decide to be the Nazis, one of the most evil institutions to ever exist, and then at the end of the war just decide to stop being the Nazis. It was a long process of humans making (bad) human decisions. The implicit point here, and with almost all of his work, is that good people can be talked into doing really bad things, and to be cautious around "movements" (like The Peoples' Temple, or a lot of the civil rights groups) because they can slowly-then-suddenly turn into a nightmare.
Douglass showed his cards, and it turns out that he's an idiot with a nice voice. The Strange Death of Europe was a good book, but it turns out the person behind it is probably a fool.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
49m ago
"Matt Walsh posts Swastika on Timeline" is not a controversy that someone generally wants to be involved in. Like the Sewer Ben Shapiro telling him he can't post that, along with pats on the back from others in the reply. This stuff just isn't on the timeline of people who aren't being intentionally provocative.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
49m ago
I do because it propagates a dangerous misconception about what 'woke' means.
Well, I'd be worried about this more if I thought the tame came about as a result of a genuine misconception. When I'm worried this is used to shut out my ideas, I prefer to play the reverse of the "Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand" card, and say "ok, I'm woke right, now address my arguments". It cuts to the chase, puts the ball in their court, and arguably actually lowers the chances of any misconceptions being spread.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
57m ago
Yes, but the Dissident Right is a broader category than the Alt Right. I have the feeling you're implying that the Boomer Consensus is anti-fascist, therefore the Dissident Right is fascist or fashy, whereas I would say it's merely anti- or non- liberal.
The problem here is that the definition of Fascism is functionally non-liberal, Right Wing. You can argue that shouldn't be the operative definition of fascism, but the DR is fashy by nature of being Right-Wing and post-liberal.
Well, I certainly hope you're wrong. If you want to argue for nazism, argue for nazism, don't hide behind this "hee hee, I'm just a silly edgelord" bullshit. This sort of behavior is about the only thing that would justify the anti-"woke right" freak out, in my mind.
But the point is that poking the eye of the Boomer Consensus with edgy stuff like does not mean Walsh is arguing for Nazism. It's just flaunting a disrespect for norms enforced by Conservatives and Woke alike. In fact that would be my criticism of Walsh, he's trying to have a foot in both camps. He's trying to synthesize the Daily Wire Conservatism with some of the Race stuff from the DR + some edgy flaunting of political norms. Where does his actual thinking lie? I don't know.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
If it was unintentional he would at minimum delete the tweet, and probably send another tweet apologizing and insisting it was a mistake.
That makes no sense. Why would he do that if it was unintentional?
HighResolutionSleep
1hr ago
In short, I think you're arguing as though women shoulder most of the risks in the current romantic equation. When there's an serious argument that it works the opposite way.
This is simply the best way of putting it. The conversation on these issues is always completely upside down. When it comes to reproduction, women hold virtually all of the power. Holding men more accountable for it will have little effect, save only though indirect splash damage at best.
gattsuru
1hr ago
From a legal perspective, requirements to join HOAs are usually set up as contractual requirements on the land, as well as a requirement to pass that onto any further sales of the land. Some created themselves in extant neighborhoods by getting the then-current homeowners to buy in, but these days most are set up by the original land developer and transmit from the first sale on. Courts have invalidated this type of thing in very specific circumstances, but outside of that one context they generally don't like to break real property contract requirements.
That process is, imo, one of the stronger arguments that they can be whitewashed state action: in addition to the dependency on mode of enforcement that Shelley highlighted, land developers can get anything from nod-and-wink permitting favoritism to outright direct grants for setting up HOAs with policies that match whatever the local government wants done.
I'm Not A Fan of them -- there are some reasonable HOAs and some reasonable cause for them like shared facilities maintenance or setting explicit standards of behavior, and there are a tiny portion of actually-voluntary HOAs that don't have such contract requirements. But even the good ones can be pretty easily corrupted by a single neurotic, and a lot were never good to start with. In theory, frustrated homeowners could take over an HOA (or even dissolve it), but in practice the bylaws are set up to make this an incredibly difficult and ponderous thing.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
1hr ago
Various household items that you would normally buy on Aliexpress. Hooks, holders, handles, boxes, stands, etc.
The Dissident Right is bigger now than the alt-right ever was in its heyday in terms of engagement with ideas and content and influence.
Yes, but the Dissident Right is a broader category than the Alt Right. I have the feeling you're implying that the Boomer Consensus is anti-fascist, therefore the Dissident Right is fascist or fashy, whereas I would say it's merely anti- or non- liberal.
But both the Woke and Peterson will be scandalized by the DR critique of those values and the DR's rejection of this Boomer moral paradigm which they all pretend is centuries old but only goes back to, like the 60s at the earliest.
My post already got way too long, but I was considering a whole section comparing and contrasting the recent Triggernometry interviews with Deborah Frances and Lily Phillips, with a conversation between Konstantin Kissin and Benjamin Boyce. The first one is a bit stand-offish but Kisin and Foster are defensive if not apologetic, quick to assure that "we certainly don't hold that [insert right-wing opinion]". The second one is friendly and the tone is nearly giddy. Sure they ask some critical questions, but it's hardly what I'd call confrontational. This is in stark contrast to the conversation with Boyce, which is agrressive with a constant tone of moral outrage, for the high crime of thinking that maybe Churchill wasn't a good guy. Call me crazy, but I think people believing Deborah Frances' brand of feminism, and Philipsesque OnlyFans prostitutes have done far more damage to society than people with an axe to grind against Churchill, but it's the latter that get the moral outrage.
I believe he knew what he was doing.
Well, I certainly hope you're wrong. If you want to argue for nazism, argue for nazism, don't hide behind this "hee hee, I'm just a silly edgelord" bullshit. This sort of behavior is about the only thing that would justify the anti-"woke right" freak out, in my mind.
Thoroughlygruntled
1hr ago
FWIW, in my experience, the conservative/libertarian legal movement has been virtually unanimously against universal injunctions for as long as they've been a thing. Some activists and Republican state SGs will seek them, and I've seen people argue in favor of their use for strategic reasons as a counter to the left, but I'm not sure I've ever heard a principled argument in favor of universal injunctions from the right. While they're a matter of open controversy on the left.
So it's not purely a partisan issue, especially if you only look at government actors, but how to put the universal injunction genie back in the bottle has been a perrenial panel discussion topic at Federalist Society events for at least a decade.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
I mean, have there been a rash of porn directors, strip club managers, etc getting excoriated in the public eye under metoo? There was Joe Francis, but that was more because of his antics after being accused than because the specifics of the accusation struck anyone as beyond the pale.
It seems like even wokes understand that ‘don’t consort with those sorts of men’ is a rule which punishes violations on its lonesome.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1hr ago
If it was unintentional he would at minimum delete the tweet, and probably send another tweet apologizing and insisting it was a mistake. Leaving it on the timeline, where it has 3.5 million views now despite the fact he is no doubt well aware of the nature of the image, points to him being intentionally provocative.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Matt Walsh is only the most recent of a long list of big-C Conservative influencers who now essentially adopt 2017 alt-right talking points on race and increasingly, maybe Israel even.
Matt Walsh’s dislike of Candace Owens(for being a schizo) will prevent him from being an early adopter of anti-Zionism or anything else JQ related.
I also really don’t think the swastika was intentional on his part- very probable someone trolled him. I certainly didn’t look at it and see ‘swastika’.
TitaniumButterfly
1hr ago
I don’t mind being called “woke right”, if you can actually address my ideas head-on.
I do because it propagates a dangerous misconception about what 'woke' means.
'Woke' is having become awakened to the 'reality' that all differences in hierarchy are unjust, i.e. Marxism. If someone makes more money than someone else, or one group is healthier than another, or people from one neighborhood go to jail more often than people from the next neighborhood over, the only explanation is systemic injustice. Someone must have done something evil to exploit someone else -- there's no other way people could end up in such different positions. The explicit demand to 'heal' these 'historical inequities' is to feed the golden geese that are white (and sometimes Asian) males to everyone else until no distinction in outcome remains. That's wokeism. Unfortunately, in real reality, this victory condition is impossible and the whole thing is a road straight to hell.
In contrast, leftists would have you believe that 'woke' means 'interested in ethnic solidarity'. That's not woke. That's just how human beings naturally operate without a lifetime of indoctrination teaching us that preferring our own kind is evil.
Jiro
1hr ago
But I think it’s necessary for such a system to exist because there are some decisions that it’s extremely hard to undo
There are also some injunctions that are hard to undo, like an injunction against not spending money.
My understanding of the claim was that the proportion of undateable people wasn't changing:
If the proportion of undateable people is increasing, then it's entirely possible that if you can't get a date now, you could have gotten a date before. That's what it means for the proportion of undateable people to increase.
More options
Context Copy link