this is a good sign that maybe call out/accountability processes are a bad idea because there’s no way to stop them from being weaponized against you by bad faith actors
what if demonstrating this was half the reason they do it in the first place
One thing I’m disappointed hasnt come together to realize the potential of uh, Campaign Trumpism, is the alt-right seeing the potential of unions. (mostly)
Like, it’s an article of faith that one of the movement’s biggest vulnerabilities is to censorious bluehairs putting pressure on cucked employers to fire them from their jobs. But “dismissal for improper reasons”, particularly unrelated to job duties, particularly in regards to causes unpopular with the comfortable bourgeoisie, is a CLASSIC cause for labor action and impetus for unionization.
And if the bossman shrugs, points to the contract, “nothing I can do”, what are they gonna do, go after the union? Labor bosses are some of the least cucked guys out there, as you see with police unions lately half their job is to reply to ANY external pressure with “haha get fukt buddy”.
Plus there’s whatever that could do to split the left coalition, which has precedent – the hardhats and war economy workers against young hippies (which led to the Dems basically throwing the ‘72 election to Nixon), the NYC teachers’ strike of ‘68 (splitting the Jewish/labor and black/social activist wings of the city’s social democratic coalition, inspiring the domestic neoconservatism by which logic elites finally gave up on minority rights movements in the 80s-90s)
Kyle “Based Stickman” Chapman is taking time off from commercial diving to have his 15 minutes of fame, but he doesn’t betray any insecurity that being the public face of the most aggressive faction of a controversial political movement might make it hard to return to his $6500/mo job. And I have to suspect that might have something to do with Pile Drivers Local 34.
Honestly I think you’re taking them as more rational than they actually are. I joke about the Alt Right becoming Chinese and joining a Han Ethnostate in 2069, but there isn’t going to be an Alt Right in 2032, much less 2069. Having freed themselves to pursue ideologies outside the conservative mainstream, they have nonetheless left themselves ideologically bound.
Anonymous asked:
What would Lee Kwan Yew think of what that’s going to do to the GDP and national infrastructure? Not something nice, I think. It’s hard to have nice things like hospitals and power when physical security cannot be maintained.
(Antifa Bike Lock Guy came close to getting the first murder in, but it seems he was beat by that Car of Peace.)
Civil war is unlikely, but the media sure seems hyped for one.
Me: Has actually been in skype calls and IRC chats with prominent alt-right figures, attended alt-right meetups, coordinated alt-right digital action and written for alt-right sites before leaving the movement in early 2016
Hellsite users: Think they understand the alt-right better than me because they read a HuffPo explainer on the topic or whatever
Ah, but see, demobilization is impossible, as the left says again and again.
As such, you must either still secretly be an altrightie and thus untrustworthy, or not exist - even more untrustworthy! Glitches in reality can’t be relied on for accurate information, Mutie-san.
Taleb talks a lot like this certain stereotype of alt-right asshole (Maybe Mike Cernovich, but not totally brain dead) and has pointless fights I associate with alt-right assholery, but I don’t think he actually is
alt-right and I’m not quite sure what to think of him.
stumpyjoepete: I think the word is just “asshole”, or, to be more charitable, “smug, combative contrarian”.
He seems like that in a specifically right-wing way though. There are leftist asshole contrarians and centrist assholes, he has this type of assholery that I associate with alt-righter and the alt-right adjacent in particular.
It might be an artifact of a greater political realignment.
For instance, going from:
0 - Polygamy is bad because it’s socially disapproved / “gross” / foreign.
1 - Polygamy is good because of human freedom.
2 - Polygamy is bad because of its secondary effects which damage the culture we all have to live in and the people that live there, it only isn’t a problem among nerds (or otherwise significantly limited), when there is a massive gender imbalance, and under Transhumanism.
How many people out there are switching from the position “Social Libertarianism is good because gays are actually fine” to “actually, LGBT are fine but pure Social Libertarianism is not,” now? What does their behavior look like? What is their category and what should people think of them?
Anonymous asked:
mutant-aesthetic answered:
Isn’t the alt-right bodycount still at zero? Or did I miss something?
Yeah, we actually get a frogmurderer yet? Not that I am Alt Right, but I’ve been keeping an eye on them.
tsumbubura asked:
ranma-official answered:
If biological sex can be changed any amount of times at any point, there’s no reason “being transgender” could ever be a sensible category of people.
Also, “there are dragons and that means anything goes” just means you don’t understand verisimilitude.
Two reasons - if it’s expensive to get the magic, or if it’s a curse that’s tough to remove. I can’t remember what the math worked out to for a commoner.
I actually wonder if the Alt-Right changed their message to focus more on exit rather than revolution, how the public attitude towards them would change. Like, if their fundamental thesis was something along the lines of this:
“In order to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, we would like to have our own Amish/Indian sort of deal where we can peacefully withdraw from a society we find repulsive.”
Obviously by and large it would still be offensive to hardcore lefties and true believer progs, but how would it impact the moderates, the average joe? What about the free speech/gamergater/cultural libertarian crowd? Certainly it wouldn’t make them more willing to adopt the alt-right’s white nationalism, but would the idea of giving these people an exit from modernity be seen as more reasonable than them wanting to take over the US and make it a white ethno-state?
What you have to understand is that everyone in politics is incompetent and ideology-huffed. In part, because if you aren’t, it’s hard to derive enough motive power.
So, while “White People Reservation” is an order of magnitude more achievable, and two or three orders of magnitude less damaging than “make the US into a white ethno-state,” they aren’t going to take it up as their rallying cry.
okay so someone tell me why this won’t work
transgender people should get to use the correct bathroom and not be misgendered, and it is an issue of basic rights. and trans people are not going into bathrooms to commit sex crimes, that whole idea is absurd
but the conflict is not relevant to most people in the country and they view it as either a distraction, or just more culture war or at worst an attempt to sexually threaten precious and vulnerable women. pushing on the issue almost unavoidably creates disproportionate blowback because to the majority of people, the issue is being given a disproportionate focus and that means it must be nefarious
so why haven’t we, instead of saying “we keep pushing in exactly the same way, casting it as an issue where everyone who opposes us is ideologically befouled and deserving of punishment, thus getting disproportionate blowback and alienating people who we should not be alienating because that leads to a loss of our political power”, and instead of saying “we get so much blowback from how we present this issue as one where people must bend the knee to us or be cast out of respectable society, so we should give up on trying to secure rights for trans people as it’s not convenient for us to do so any more”
why don’t we make the law “people are allowed to use the bathroom of their gender identity, but if someone is convicted of sexual assault in a bathroom that they entered by pretending to be a different gender, their sentence is more severe”?
like from our point of view, we’re not losing anything. we know trans people are far less likely than baseline to commit sex crimes and bathroom access is not about enabling sex crimes. but for the people who don’t already agree with us, it looks like we’re both taking measures to deter the thing they don’t want to happen, and putting our money where our mouth is, instead of telling them “this is how things are you are not allowed to notice otherwise now bow to our worldview”. by making it a sentencing rider, we don’t increase the ability of transphobes to frame trans people for sex crimes – if we are afraid this law would encourage them to do so we should be exactly as afraid of them doing so without this law.
like if your position is “we should allow X because it is just, and will not allow Bad Thing Y at all” and your opposition says “we should not allow X because it will just promote Bad Thing Y”, it seems to me that “How about we allow X, but punish Bad Thing Y more harshly if it gets promoted by X, so people don’t do it?” is pretty much the easiest compromise ever.
so why won’t that work?
I imagine people would just say it’s already creating a dangerous situation where sexual assault is more likely to happen and reject it. They will say you are already allowing a risk and that in itself is unacceptable. (Same reasoning why same sex parents adopting kids is not allowed here, even when there is heaps of data showing kids elsewhere are fine, they insist we cannot put children at such a risk not knowing the consequences (even if we DO know!) and it’s too much of a gamble.)
Also we both know cases of fake sexual assault stories, who are widely believed even when there is plain evidence of the contrary, exist. What makes you think it would not happen in this case, when trans women are seen as even more inherently predatory than men?
If they say “Punishing people more won’t deter them from doing bad things” then we just won a huge victory and we get to reduce all the Draconian sentences for all this other shit, since they are the exact people who say we need to have incredibly harsh sentences to prevent people from doing bad things. But I doubt they’ll say that.
And yes, we do know cases of fake sexual assault stories exist. The point is that by being a rider on a sexual assault conviction instead of a crime in and of itself, it does not increase the ability of anyone to frame trans people for sexual assault. It doesn’t even increase the incentive to do so, as it isn’t like the utility of framing someone for being trans is correlated with the number of years they serve is convicted.
We keep saying that there’s no reason to be afraid because letting trans people use the right bathroom is not exposing anyone to danger. If we won’t do this, then either
A: we believe that trans people will commit enough sexual assault in bathrooms that this will be a problem and that means we have been lying this whole time, or
B: we believe that trans people using the right bathroom in transphobic areas will lead to a rash of them being falsely accused of sexual assault, in which case why the fuck are we trying to push this law on transphobic areas when we believe it will just lead to trans people being falsely accused?
right-wingers keep saying “The left wants to let people into the women’s room to assault them because they can claim they ‘identify’ as a woman! It’s just a way for perverts to threaten (precious, wonderful) women!”
we keep telling them “That isn’t what this law is about and that isn’t a thing that happens anyway, the thing you are concerned with is not an event that occurs, you are imagining it, this is only about not harming people for being trans”
if the slightest token effort to put our money where our mouth is and say “this is so much not about letting people attack women in the bathroom that if anyone actually tries to do that we’ll come down way harder on them, because we want to show that we are not about letting women get attacked, and because we don’t think trans people being allowed to use the right bathroom will cause them to attack women” gives us pause, then we need to stop and figure out how we have fucked up because we have fucked up very very very badly.
I am all about this kind of ideological trade.
the general right-wing sentiment that children aren’t being abused at optimal rates and the cure for being transgender is as much abuse as possible is pretty much reified in Kenneth Zucker’s trans youth conversion therapy program
Now see, someone assumed I identified as right-wing, but if I identified as right-wing, people would either expect me to defend Libertarianism or “youth conversion therapy” and I’m not interested in defending either.
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.
