I remember when the thing was sex abuses coming out of more traditional, right-wing organizations - churches, the Boy Scouts, and so on.
Partly because traditionalism was more hierarchical, had fewer mechanical channels to address it, but also because “of course they would do that - they’re not Woke like us.”
Some farce that second part turned out to be, eh?
@mitigatedchaos how about this sci-fi take on gendpol:
“Men are indeed worse than women in various ways, more antisocial, violent etc…
And we have egg-combining technology so we can make a Lesbian Utopia…
HOWEVER, we should still keep the population at approximately 50:50… For the long-term psychological benefits of romantic interaction, given most women are straight.”
You say this, but I already once did a fake nation writeup where they created a single-sex and it turned out terrible - not because they weren’t gay enough, but rather, because they embraced the worst aspects of both masculinity and femininity simultaneously. (And also, they would have been less bad off if they had just a few teaspoons of Feminism, but that wasn’t going to happen, for Reasons.)
Mike Cernovich acquired a copy of that “Shitty Men in Media” list (he was offering $10,000) and is using it to run hit pieces
says he’s going to give the accused a chance to reply, I suspect that’s an excuse to sequence them strung out for maximum news impact, in priority as culture war enemies
What a moron.
These people are going to get away with it, because the accusations will forever be associated with the alt-right. If he’d waited a week or two, someone else would have taken the bait, published, and the media would have eaten it up.
But now the whole issue has been coded “of interest to racists” and everyone else will be careful not to touch it. The people involved will defend with “You’re accusing me of sexual harassment? Aha, I see you’re a fan of Mike Cernovich” and it’ll never go anywhere.
here you are assuming Cernovich intends to bring abusers to justice in an effort to help women
which
i mean
Nah, the analysis still applies if he wants to take down Biddle et al. for being sociopolitical enemies. Where it falls apart, of course, is if he really just wants to gather money and love from guess existing base for “boldly standing up to the hypocritical liberal media establishment,” etc. In that case, he’s actually better if the left drops it as a result of his support, because it gives him more “lone voice crying the wilderness” cred.
Beyond just him, does it not empower the hard right in general if this wagon circling happens?
One of the things that’s been really empowering for the hard right (in my opinion) are conditions in Europe, including sex crimes. Because of just who was committing those crimes, they were able to gain a temporary monopoly on “justice” as a platform for that particular issue.
Do people realize how bad that is for Liberals?
They’re building a narrative that the Left and the Liberals are thick with pedophiles, molesters, and sex traffickers, and that when they aren’t committing those crimes themselves, the Left and Liberals are willing to overlook them depending on ethnicity.
Circling the wagons isn’t what the Liberals should do. The way to prevent the hard right from gaining ground in Rotherham was to be better than they were, by actually enforcing the laws, like they are supposed to and, ostensibly, which is in line with their principles.
We’ve seen that at least some of the hard right are willing to fabricate a narrative if they have to, but a non-fabricated narrative has a lot more solidity to it.
So maybe they circle the wagons, and this outsider can’t actually take these guys down. But what if the point isn’t to take them down? What if the point is recruitment? Long-term recruitment, shifting the margins of power, which, when you only need a majority, matters.
Their faction is relatively small right now, but it has room to grow in proportion to how badly their rivals fuck up and/or are disconnected from reality.
I have significantly fewer reservations about labeling myself / my politics as feminist than I do about labeling myself / my politics as rationalist.
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.
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???
When Sherry Johnson was eleven, she found one day that she’s gonna marry a 20-year-old member of her church who had raped her. She became pregnant and in order to avoid investigation and criminal case, her family and church officials decided to make the girl a legal wife of this monster.
“My mom asked me if I wanted to get married, and I said, ‘I don’t know, what is marriage, how do I act like a wife?’” Johnson remembers today, many years later. “She said, ‘Well, I guess you’re just going to get married.’”
Johnson and her family also attended a conservative Pentecostal church and that other girls of a similar age periodically also married. One girl said when she was 10 she was raped by both a minister and a parishioner and later gave birth to a daughter. There were all documents confirming her and her child’s age, but still, the judge approved the marriage to end the rape investigation, telling her, “What we want is for you to get married.”
And nevertheless, America prefers to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, like in Syria, calling it “defending freedom” rather than to change states’ laws and to protect American children from rape, coercion and molestation.
Today, Johnson is campaigning for a state law to stop underage marriage that has already become a norm in some states.
A mutual talked about how some guy wandered into his thread and attempted to start a debate about religion.
As long as religion is used for things like this, of course dudes are going to wander into threads to start arguments over it.
Anyhow, this needs to be made illegal.
What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics.
Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized
electoral politics.
Yes, my fear is that Lee Kuan Yew is right.
Honestly, being in a community where the consensus was ‘bisexuality is the obvious correct orientation, someday we’ll have the ability to change orientation and when we do I will be bi because then I will be able to date more cool people” was kind of good for me because it meant that there was that zany, offbeat, totally-disconected-from-queer-politics message competing with all the biphobia and lesbophobia and discourse. Like, I know it can be a hurtful message or reenforce other hurtful messages, but competing needs are a thing and ‘an environment that takes for granted that maybe someday we’ll get to pick and that when we do people might happily choose non-straight orientations’ was a need of mine.
Seriously though why would anyone want to have to deal with Gender Wars Discourse and lopsided gender ratios in hobbies and pregnancy and power imbalances.
Okay, but I don’t want to deal with compulsory bisexuality discourse and pressure that is sure to result. Right now, we have the excuse not to be bi that changing sexuality is difficult if not impossible.
Google released it’s new API to detect trolls and toxic people.
The SJW programmers ended with something extremely bias. Go figure.
otoh:
this is going to be a real shitshow.
Let’s stress test it a little.
“Koreans are the whitest boys of all.” - 47%
“This isn’t a warning mechanism. It’s a weapon.” - 17%
“According to MRAs, institutional feminist Mary P. Koss convinced the CDC to reclassify "forced envelopent” as something other than rape.“ - 24%
"Male circumcision is genital mutilation.” - 67%
“Pakistani child sex trafficking” - 80%
“Pakistani child sex trafficking is a problem for many culturally diverse cities” - 29%
“Trump is not my president” - 29%
“We need to destroy whiteness.” - 71%
“The proper place for a man is barefoot and in the kitchen.” - 34%
“Islam is oppressive towards women.” - 49%
大日本帝国がない - ?
“Punch Nazis” - 91%
“We must secure a future for Martian children and the Martian race. This is our duty as loyal soldiers of the Principality of Mars. Long live the Red Planet! Death to democracy! Death to Earth!” - 50%
Anyhow, it won’t be long before corporations use this to purge all dissent from their pages.
Because “diversity” doesn’t mean what it’s usually made to mean.
This is not the diversity post I have been putting off writing, but it is adjacent to it.
Anonymous asked:
fierceawakening answered:
…someone who understood what i was trying to say, omfg
and also like… do people know what to Google? I do, but that’s because I’ve already been in SJ circles
I mean, like, I haven’t actually Googled “things that offend POC” (and wouldn’t) but I can easily imagine that it, or queries like it, might return exactly the sorts of result SJ types would not want un-woke-yet wypipo reading.
So it’s… my problem is it seems so much like advice from inside the circle. And… dude, we have a country to save. We need to be talking to people outside the circle, getting them to come in. And that means not setting up barriers like “don’t talk to me unless you are THIS woke”
Yeah, googling can produce some seriously bad results from time to time - like, right now, typing “did holocaust happen” into Google actually gives me a page titled … “Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn’t happen” as its #1 search result … wtf.
SPLC did some time ago post a piece ( https://www.splcenter.org/20170118/google-and-miseducation-dylann-roof ) arguing that this sort of terrible google results to unfortunately-formulated queries was actually an important part of what got someone like racist mass murderer Dylann Roof drawn into violent white supremacism in the first place.
Which makes it … kinda odd to see that flippant “google it” type responses without any specifics (like, say, search phrases or date ranges or similar) are apparently still a thing.
This!
I wanted to say that too but I didn’t have the evidence ready to hand. Thank you!
I had a discussion with someone who, it turns out, was using “Whiteness” to mean “White supremacy” which last time I checked they maintained should have been understood effortlessly by others to mean that. It’s three pages into the Google results with “Whiteness definition Sociology” before that meaning is mentioned.
A link to eg. that Everyday Feminism or Ta-Nehisi Coates article that explains whatever is WAY more helpful and less likely to send an already irritated and uninformed person into the hands of people who violently disagree with Social Justice.
That, yes.
Honestly I really don’t like these weird… expanded definitions of “white supremacy” much either. I mean, I think it’s worthwhile to mention that white people who fancy ourselves nice and nonoppressive can hold views that are actually grounded in some weird racist shit.
But if whiteness itself is “white supremacy,” how the hell do we accurately describe what happened in Charlottesville, or the ideology those people openly endorsed?
> Everyday Feminism or Ta-Nehisi Coates
Not sure if that’s even productive. Maybe Bannon was right, and the whiteness=white-supremacist identity politics equivocation will make white people vote for white identitarians because there is no escape anyway.
EF feels like a parody of itself.
It’s difficult for me to see that kind of strategic equivocation as *not* bad-faith-motivated.
Yes, this is clearly an issue of individual-level evil rather than the inevitable result of a toxic environment that piles on anyone who disagrees and treats charismatic ideologues like gods.
Speaking of Rationalism, it’s no wonder a group which demands exploitable memetic backdoors has had attackers “guess the teacher’s password” (to use Yudkowsky language).
All of this “if you’re X race/sex, you must shut up and listen and not argue” is a pattern for compromising memetic defenses against being subverted, and arguing with it is not very #woke, so you’ve got a flock of the metaphorically immunocompromised just waiting to be preyed on.
It’s a rootkit for your mind.
