are you a “makes fun of otherkin” anti-sj or are you a “writes thousand word posts about intersectionality and the evils of normativity” anti-sj
I’m “thinks otherkin are ridiculous since that’s not a realistic variation on human brain designs, but supports their right to morphological freedom in the transhuman future”.
Claiming you don’t need or want a safe space of any kind because “life isn’t safe” is the most obnoxious kind of bravery debate.
Life as an entity/overarching concept isn’t safe, sure, but we’re not talking about safety from random happenstance; we’re talking about things we can control. You could get hit by a car tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean you should take a bath with your toaster. Similarly, the fact that some people out there in the world might be callous and cruel is no reason not to avoid callousness and cruelty when you have the option. On the contrary: it’s a reason to insist on more exacting standards when you have the chance to do so.
Part of the opposition to safe spaces is driven by two things:
1. Attempts to turn entire institutions into “safe spaces” are undertaken by SJ advocates, even when making a space safe for one group means making it unsafe for another group, and this can be used as a means of political control.
2. The opposition knows darn well that they aren’t allowed to have their own spaces, therefore they want to deny every other group their ability to make an exclusive space. Part of the reason for this is that SJ tends to make excuses for why their own policies should not apply to themselves.
Combine these together, and “the world isn’t a safe space” becomes a suitable rhetorical weapon - after all, they aren’t allowed a space so they have nothing to lose by it.
the idea that Milo can’t be racist because he’s Jewish or can’t have regressive gender politics because he’s gay is just strange, I mean isn’t that the exact kind of identity politics weirdness that he and his acolytes decry?
or is it supposed to function as a tu quoque to his opponents?
I mean it just seems like the correct response to allegations of racism or sexism or whatever would be to own it and stick to his guns.
It may be operating on the theory that if this brute categorization is weaponized and shoved in the Left’s face enough, they’ll get the idea that Venn Diagram Intersectionality is dumb and cuts the corners off of people to get them to fit in the overlapping circles of identity prescribed for them.
If that is the intent, it won’t actually work, though. We’re talking about the same political movement that pushed identity politics so much that white nationalism is starting to come back from the dead.
“Because for some transwomen, femininity can feel asymptotic — the closer you get, the more you feel you can never make it.”
This is a…hard, uncomfortable read if you’re a cis woman, but it’s a good read.
a lot to think about.
as someone who has engaged in a lot of shitty misguided misandry in the past, this was a crucial read. who is invested in the stability of men as a category n why? how can one speak to one’s experiences with weaponized masculinity without reinforcing other kinds of structural violence, like cissexism and white supremacy?
This is a bullshit article. It reflects tremendous self-loathing, and it was irresponsible for Medium to publish it. “It’s so hard the other girls don’t know my tragic trans narrative, because I have made a conscious decision to live it only in dreams and online anonymous op-eds and will never ever tell them.”
This is another case of cis people exploiting the pain and suffering of trans people who aren’t in a position to know better.
I originally discussed this article in some depth on facebook so please read on for a (slightly choppy) elaboration of my reaction:
I just read the text. I don’t know what I think about it yet, but I know one thing for sure : wow, fuck you :) @collaterlysisters
let me add on to this, fuck you @collaterlysisters
Ah, yes, I read this some time ago.
I can never be a true traditionalist, because I want to build the switch and obliterate dozens of category distinctions in doing so. It’s the only way to end many of the existing tensions within so many systems. Eventually, you have to go beyond triaging with limited resources and build such an overwhelmingly powerful economy that you can choose all the options you wanted before simultaneously.
Every time that I’ve talked about feeling white guilt and in general being seen as a white person, people have said things like, “But… aren’t you Asian?”
And they’re right to say that, to be clear! It’s really shitty to reduce Asians to Basically-White if they disagree with you, and I appreciate everyone who pointed the gross unfairness of this action out.
But at the same time I feel like they’re missing the point. For all intents and purposes, as someone who’s been adopted across racial lines, I am white. I am white-cultured. I am Western-cultured. I’m American in my individualism and my perspectives.
And that feels wrong to ignore as well.
When kyriarchy tries to cleave reality at inexact and ill-defined fault lines, people rightly object. Categories don’t cut neatly; there are always people who queer binaries by their very existence. Forcing them to Choose a Side rarely works out well.
The same applies to sj. I’m racially Chinese and ethnically white-American; you can’t discredit the white part of me without also ignoring and erasing the Chinese part, and you can’t pedestalize the Chinese part without ignoring and erasing the white part.
Under white supremacy, either my white-American ethnicity is celebrated and my Chinese race is “excused” (and erased), or my white-American ethnicity is erased and my Chinese race is denounced. Under the reverse discourse, either my Chinese race is celebrated while my white-American ethnicity is “excused” (and erased), or my Chinese race is erased and my white-American ethnicity is denounced.
Sj must not forget intersectionality. It must not forget that identities lead to complicated intersections that are inseparable from each other. It must deconstruct and replace kyriarchal categories rather than enforcing them.
I’m not American+Chinese. I’m Chinese American.
I propose a model in which power is represented and analyzed as a graph of relationships between individuals, where nodes represent individuals and weighted directed edges represent power relationships.
Relationships that effect groups can then be observed and measured without reducing all members of those groups into indistinct blobs where all members are considered interchangeable, or venn diagram intersections.
Edit: May also be of interest to @theunitofcaring.
SSC’s latest seems like a classic case of letting gender politics obfuscate power and class issues that cut across gender.
He quotes some PUA:
Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy.
And then he uses both his intuitive experience and his LW survey data to show that men and women in polyamory date about the same number of people. There’s at least no clear cut numerical advantage to men. My experience also agrees.
But what if we neuter that sentence, and look at it again:
Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value people dudes hording all the dates.
Which is to say, charismatic and confident people of either gender, dating a lot of people, and awkward and introverted people of both genders dating no one, only one person, or being a hanger on in a larger polycule that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the partner regardless.
That sounds… less implausible. It doesn’t exactly match my observed experience, but it’s not super far from it either. I’ve certainly seen in nerdy groups a Queen Bee that is dating half the men, in a way that seems parallel to the alpha-males that PUA’s fear/worship.
It’s not at all clear that this is bad. This seems just as likely to be the result of “some people want more partners, and are more socially outgoing to find them, while some people want less or are less willing to put themselves out there to meet them,” which would be fine. Or it could be this high-value thing. (I detest rat-tumb’s focus on high-status-males as the evil beneficiary of social engineering, which seems both empirically and ontologically unsound, but from a capitalist-critical perspective, “liberalizing trade regimes” often means “the rich people get more stuff and poor people somehow have less.”)
But, I’m also not going to be surprised by the subjective perspective of people low on the social totem pole. Before, they had hope in this pigeon-hole thing, where each person could get at most one partner, so eventually the people as attractive as them would realize their best chance for a life long relationship was with fellow low-class dates like themselves. It was a bad model, but I’m aware people believed in it. Now they worry no one will be left waiting for them, and they’ll be entirely alone forever. So there’s some people who seem to be having a lot of sex (stealing their jouissance) and they aren’t reaping the benefits.
The answers they come up with are usually dumb, but they are at least seeing/feeling a thing.
Bambam honey darling kun, and also @slatestarscratchpad friend,
I love weird nerds but weird nerds aren’t a representative sample for the behavior of typical relationship norms.
A better example for normies applying this would be all the other countries, territories and communities where polygamy is practiced, as well as communities within the US where one man will have 11 kids by 8 different women.
No full poly until Tranhumanism makes it possible to ‘defect’ from both your sex and sexual orientation, pls.
Anonymous asked:
Dearest Anon-kun,
My representation is a bit more dire than how I actually interpret the situation, in part because it’s intended as a counter-balance to mainstream feminism, which strips women of their agency and refuses to critically examine their role in the social dynamics which create these situations.
“Women are powerless” is really quite deeply normalized almost everywhere! It’s very insidious.
Comments regarding even cishet neurotypical women should be regarded as generalizations that do not uniformly apply to the population, and many subgroups don’t necessarily fit them. Additionally, low-status women also exist. In fact, women that don’t fit this mold are more common in my subcultures!
Additionally,
1) I have a reasonable shot at making it to the Transhuman era.
2) I have a close relationship to my ex WRT expressed vulnerability & female companionship, though not sexually.
3) Have you observed the number of self-identified “traps” and other such individuals among the Alt Right? I believe this represents a sign of an impending Male Gender Meltdown, the consequences of which are hard to predict. Overall, I do think progress is being made, as indicated by the appearance of multiple male gender movements.
Also,
All my exes are bisexual (and therefore have no set reason to behave in a certain pattern of attraction), and this blog will continue to not disclose my sex/gender.
Kind Regards,
Miti
P.S. If you are secretly the tumblr user known as BA, this blog hopes for your swift recovery regardless of whether that is low in probability. If you are secretly tumblr user RO, this blog hopes for an increase in your available useful energy.
Everytime an anti-sj/”skeptical”/whatever says that using the right pronouns for trans people is a matter of courtesy I want to scream in the void
What’s wrong with saying it’s about respect/courtesy?
if it is about respect, then you misgender people you don’t respect (as we see SJ do to any outside The In Clique) and then accurate pronouns are something you must earn by adherence to their ideology
It’s about winning the local battle (pronouns), since it’s easier than winning the war (trans is legit), and maybe if the local battle is won people will go easier.
But it does have that side effect.
for a post-racial society Tumblr sure does get heated about whether Armenians count as white or not.
it’s mercifully one of the few debates that feature the Kardashians and genocide as legitimate talking points.
I thought Tumblr was all about racial awareness, not being post-racial?
I thought that was the new SJ Left thing - racial awareness, racial consciousness, ethnic experiences - just only for those with enough overlapping categories in the Venn Diagram of Oppression.
So I’ve been seeing this post go around our little sphere here, and….
look, everything in that post is correct, but the change is never going to happen.
the “Dork = Reactionary” narrative is a superweapon that SJ is never going to willingly surrender. it’s too goddamn useful.
not only does it allow them to righteously bash a helpless target (“THESE BARELY-FUNCTIONAL ASPIES ARE ALL SECRETLY NAZIS!!!”), but also allows them to use the threat of being tarred as a NEET to keep each other toeing the line.
It’s never going away.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
