Oceans Yet to Burn

the-grey-tribe

unknought

I have significantly fewer reservations about labeling myself / my politics as feminist than I do about labeling myself / my politics as rationalist.

the-grey-tribe

I guess it all boils down to the question “Would you oppress women in a hypothetical world in which oppressing women was the right thing to do“

Your answer to this question is irrelevant, what matters is what you think the question means, and how you think other people want you to answer it.

mitigatedchaos

We could oppress straight women less by legalizing polygam- wait, why are the men suddenly acting all desperate and trying to take permanent ownership of women at the earliest time possible? Why are women’s mental health and education outcomes declining?? Why is civil order decreasing???

Source: unknought gendpol

invertedporcupine

mitigatedchaos

@argumate

Yes, they’re going to fight over abortion, since it involves terminating human life. You can argue whether it constitutes “persons” - which is indeed my position, not having a brain means something can’t be a person even if it’s otherwise human - but you can’t argue that a fetus is not human.

Other than that, no, it’s not going to get rolled back barring a major reduction in material prosperity. Not unless something really dumb happens, like one of the nastier forms of Islam taking over - which, I might add, the same Social Justice activists that say they are in favor of women’s liberation, effectively insist we do nothing to stop.

The reduction in child mortality due to advanced medicine and household labor due to automation basically guarantees that the old order won’t really return.

Who is going to cause it to return? Social conservatives? They’ve been losing the battle for social conservatism for at least a century. The definition of what counts as “social conservative” is still shifting leftwards.

“Patriarchy” such as it was arose out of material conditions, including kids dying at a ridiculous rate, so unless we’re dumb enough to bring those material conditions back, the support for it is just not going to be there.

invertedporcupine

The definition of what counts as “social conservative” is still shifting leftwards.

Someone should inform the Georgia primary electorate.

mitigatedchaos

I don’t know what they’re doing, but from your comment, I’d say they’re fighting a losing battle.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics

@argumate

Yes, they’re going to fight over abortion, since it involves terminating human life. You can argue whether it constitutes “persons” - which is indeed my position, not having a brain means something can’t be a person even if it’s otherwise human - but you can’t argue that a fetus is not human.

Other than that, no, it’s not going to get rolled back barring a major reduction in material prosperity. Not unless something really dumb happens, like one of the nastier forms of Islam taking over - which, I might add, the same Social Justice activists that say they are in favor of women’s liberation, effectively insist we do nothing to stop.

The reduction in child mortality due to advanced medicine and household labor due to automation basically guarantees that the old order won’t really return.

Who is going to cause it to return? Social conservatives? They’ve been losing the battle for social conservatism for at least a century. The definition of what counts as “social conservative” is still shifting leftwards.

“Patriarchy” such as it was arose out of material conditions, including kids dying at a ridiculous rate, so unless we’re dumb enough to bring those material conditions back, the support for it is just not going to be there.

gendpol

isaacsapphire

nocherrybombs

Why did the early 2000s neocons think we could export liberal democracy to the Middle East? We can’t even export liberal democracy to the United States.

mitigatedchaos

Once you drink too much of certain variants of Liberalism, you start assuming that Liberal Democracy is the natural condition of mankind and once the restraints are removed, it will naturally emerge and take root, along with economic development.

nuclearspaceheater

I mean, it‘s probably doable, but step 1 is to enforce a ban on cousin marriage for 1000 years.

mitigatedchaos

Ah, but you see, Neocons are ideologically prohibited from acknowledging this, because hey, what is a foreign culture but food and clothing waiting to be sold in the United States?

mitigatedchaos

You could do it in far fewer generations, but you’d have to install a 20-year military governorship, still ban cousin marriages out to the third degree, enforce village exogamy, and seize total control of the educational system to wipe out non-trivial parts of the culture and replace them with ideology necessary to support Liberal Democracy.

That’s a pretty big ideological price, and it would require a long troop presence to enforce.

It’s hardly impossible. Afghanistan was liberalizing at one point. But if you’re too hooked on the ideology that democracy flowers in all soils, it isn’t possible for you to carry it out.

isaacsapphire

That actually kinda sounds like “the last few hundred years of Japanese history, but faster”.

Source: nocherrybombs

silver-and-ivory

mailadreapta

In the collection of rhetorician Richard Weaver’s essays entitled In Defense of Tradition, Weaver describes the different forms which propaganda can take and their intended effects. Type 1 Propaganda is the “Big Lie” of the Soviet Union or Orwell’s 1984. The nature of the “Big Lie” is that the lie should be so big and so obvious that no sane person could believe it.
Superficially, this form of propaganda would be similar to the Chinese loyalty test referred to as “Point Deer Make Horse.” The difference is how the lie is used. As a loyalty test, the “Big Lie” is meant to distinguish those who will lie from those who will not lie for the authorities. As a form of propaganda, the loyalties of the targets are already known: they are enemies. Instead, the lie is a form of psychological torture meant to degrade and demean members of the opposition. Consider the following quote from Theodore Dalrymple:
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Weaver explains that this form of propaganda is aimed at demeaning, humiliating, and eroding the self-respect of those who oppose the regime. It is an expression of pure power, in that the propagandist can force the victim to repeat a doctrine that both people know is untrue. There is no potential gain for the propagandist except insofar his enemy is psychological broken and defeated. There is no intention for the “Big Lie” to have any effect outside the torture chamber.

Source.

wirehead-wannabe

*sideye at organized religion*

silver-and-ivory

@squareallworthy This might be the quote you were looking for in regards to Hillary Clinton.

isaacsapphire

So, nobody clicked through to the article I’m thinking.

The title is “Transgenderism Is Propaganda Designed To Humiliate And Compel Submission”

Basic upshot of it in quotes:

“…left-wing signaling is an arms race in which leftists are trapped by the terms of their religious status system in an escalating spiral to see who can find the most radical, most irrational expression of egalitarian ideas…

Cathedral elite know full well that transgender individuals are mentally ill and have chosen to embrace this cause for ulterior motives, as there is something inherent in the issue that provides them an advantage… this form of propaganda is aimed at demeaning, humiliating, and eroding the self-respect of those who oppose the regime. It is an expression of pure power, in that the propagandist can force the victim to repeat a doctrine that both people know is untrue. There is no potential gain for the propagandist except insofar his enemy is psychological broken and defeated…

…this propaganda is aimed at religious and socially conservative or moderate individuals who are politically centrist or center-right. The threat is implicit: either admit that the man in a dress is a woman, or we will take away your job, take away your respectability in the community, send CPS after your children, and otherwise destroy your life… examine the various media pieces about how straight men are bigots because they won’t have sex with transsexual “women:” the implicit threat here is chilling. The message from the Cathedral mouthpieces is that the time is coming when dissenters will be told that they must copulate with a transgender or be punished by the regime. What could be a greater exercise of pure power than forcing your opponents to participate in soul-destroying sexual depravity and to pretend to enjoy it?

…Transgender individuals are puppets of his system. Their ultimate fate is irrelevant to the question at hand, and any discussion on the right about “compassion” or “understanding” is a non sequitur… acting like transgenderism has anything to do with helping actual transgender individuals makes one a participant in propaganda and a willing dupe…

How many genders am I holding up, Winston?”

silver-and-ivory

Great….

mitigatedchaos

This is definitely what some conservatives actually believe.

Their understanding of gender is attributed to “genes,” but it’s actually skin deep. They either cannot accept that hormones could go wrong at the brain sexing process even though they believe brains are sexed, or they see the phenotype as dominant and morally binding over the neurotype.

Though of course, this is shaped in part by the fact that some people just don’t pass, and barring new medical technology, never will. Even with those that pass better, there can still be brain systems that are going “THAT IS [SEX]” subconsciously which are in conflict with hetero- (or more rarely, homo-) monosexuality.

Of course, some of the gender people are baffled by this, because they’re at least weakly bi- or pansexual, so what’s a deal-breaker for someone who is Very Straight seems like a fake concern to them, and if it’s a fake concern, then it must exist to further oppression, right?

Source: mailadreapta transphobia cw gendpol

nuclearspaceheater

mitigatedchaos

Twitter just went to 280 characters?

Woah, maybe it will be less toxic and stupid now?

nuclearspaceheater

I fear that the resulting reduction in perceived inconvenience will actually make tweet-threads longer, as measured by both character-count and number of tweets.

mitigatedchaos

Possibly. It depends in part on the metaphorical compression ratio.

Source: mitigatedchaos

Twitter just went to 280 characters?

Woah, maybe it will be less toxic and stupid now?

wirehead-wannabe

Can I just take a moment to state how much I hate everyone everywhere on every political axis, except for the exact point where I reside?

Cool.

mitigatedchaos

fite me u coward

shtpost dont actually

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Michelle Knight's life after 11 years of captivity