The less smug you are, (and the less unethical you are), the less it stings when your most unethical behavior comes to light.
It’s good standard practice to avoid using “wit” (and snark) on people because they are low-status (”gross,” “smelly,” “ugly,” “fat harpy” and so on). First of all, it’s just not a good mental hygiene habit. Second of all, it cannot then come back to haunt you.
Probably, part of what you’re seeing with yaoi being treated the way it is is that men and their sexuality are basically constantly under attack in the culture war as creepy, oppressive, objectifying, low-status, etc.
But of course, as the sex with higher average libido and a more visual sexuality (because hormones), they are far more vulnerable to these sorts of attacks. Someone who has no sex drive at all can basically dunk on someone who does have a sex drive all day long, portraying them as evil and objectifying.
Of course, women (including lesbians, as TUOC has posted about) are not actually pure angels, despite what the culture warriors say.
Yaoi then, under this framework, is an exploitable vulnerability to snap back at the attackers and make them shut up - a weakness in the social justice armor.
And for those who have a Correct sexuality under SJ terms, it can be exploited for social standing.
Then of course there are the people that are actually annoyed by it. Not all gay men, for instance, really enjoy straight women coming into gay bars.
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 don’t associate myself with anyone who’s fully political because I wasn’t friends with nerds in high school, the fuck makes you think I’ll be friends with the same fuckwits who fantasize about bacon like they got kicked off EpicMealTime and say uncool shit like ‘you tabbernacking sonoffabitch’.
Niggas used to do graffiti, like; I’m too popular for all of you. I’m a social butterfly of charisma, what are you? You’re reblogging drumpf memes and writing Harambe in ballots or getting your shit pushed in by a whiteboy with a bun wearing all black calling you a nazi in your “Praise Kek, born to Deus Vult” apparel which makes no sense anyway, you were born to “god will it”? Nigga that’s blasphemy, uncool
can you please rephrase this in actual english
I don’t associate myself with anyone who’s fully political because I wasn’t friends with nerds in high school,
Full Politicals are all nerds (or were in high school). I don’t associate with them because they are lame.
the fuck makes you think I’ll be friends with the same fuckwits who fantasize about bacon like they got kicked off EpicMealTime
Full Politicals are fat.
and say uncool shit like ‘you tabbernacking sonoffabitch’.
Tabbernack is a Quebecois curse word, from tabernacle, a religious term. Only an uncool person would say it, trying to avoid ordinary regular curse words.
Niggas used to do graffiti, like; I’m too popular for all of you.
OP was popular in high school and participated in activities that require high social status, including violating the law.
I’m a social butterfly of charisma, what are you? You’re reblogging drumpf memes and writing Harambe in ballots
Full Politicals engage in lame, low-status, dork behavior like reblogging low-quality (anti-?)Trump memes.
or getting your shit pushed in by a whiteboy with a bun wearing all black calling you a nazi in your “Praise Kek, born to Deus Vult” apparel
When Full Politicals aren’t posting lame memes, they get beat up by manbun Antifas while wearing lame meme apparel.
which makes no sense anyway, you were born to “god will it”? Nigga that’s blasphemy, uncool
Also, Kek is an Egyptian deity, so putting “Praise Kek” on shirt about reviving the Crusades is blasphemous.
I was trying to ask Google why Japanese prefectures are called prefectures and I accidentally a racism:
I think the hilarity comes partly from the fact that when I stop the question at “Why are ___nese…” before I get to a noun, there is still a broken English nounification of the adjective that can happen if your standards are lax enough. And anywhere that you can ask “Why are Chinese smart?” without getting corrected on your grammar is probably also a place where you won’t get corrected on your racism. You have to be extra smart and well educated and enlightened to realize that everyone is definitely exactly the same everywhere.
Well, like, is it technically incorrect grammar?
In English, we put the plural status as part of the noun, but the Japanese language uses things like counters and the noun 日本人 does not actually specify whether you are referring to one or more Japanese people, as “neko” does not specify the number of cats, and so on. Japanese also doesn’t have an a/an/the attached to the noun.
So, if we adopt either a descriptivist mindset or some sort of cultural prescriptivist mindset, it could be argued that Japanese/Japanese is valid just as ninja/ninja and German/Germans. That also brings up that there is no simple plural form such as “Germans”, and I don’t think anyone anywhere will approve of “Japaneses”. (Wow, “Japaneses” sounds really racist.)
So I guess it’s down to whether the listeners/readers socially approve of it, much like “Brits” is okay, but “Japs” and “Nps” were both part of pretty damned racist WW2 propaganda and are thus permanently prohibited, even though all three are just shortenings of national names.
hmm arguing with a straight face that racism against white people is bad because it’s a slippery slope that can lead to racism against non-white people
…I
OK separately I think racism against white people is bad because it is racism.
But also I actually think that yes, unironically this? If you officially start designating races and you treat them differently (e.g.: Affirmative action), people will follow suit by thinking of them differently.
Isn’t this just what @mitigatedchaos argues all the time, that all racism is empowered and normalized by all other racism? (And the generalized version of this for the left’s hypocrisies.)
Death to the Imperialists, long live the Empire.
hmm arguing with a straight face that racism against white people is bad because it’s a slippery slope that can lead to racism against non-white people
…I
OK separately I think racism against white people is bad because it is racism.
But also I actually think that yes, unironically this? If you officially start designating races and you treat them differently (e.g.: Affirmative action), people will follow suit by thinking of them differently.
Isn’t this just what @mitigatedchaos argues all the time, that all racism is empowered and normalized by all other racism? (And the generalized version of this for the left’s hypocrisies.)
More seriously, while being racist towards white people is bad on its own merits, either as a violation of justice - judging someone for the actions of another - or on more Utilitarian grounds, most of the people that are seriously racist against the whities aren’t going to accept those arguments.
Thus the appeal to something they might actually care about.
It’s possible to create political will out of thin air, but a lot of the time it’s in reaction to historical or material factors, and political will with those factors will have deeper roots.
It’s important to realize along with this, that most politics will occur around the margins - whether groups of white supremacists are growing or shrinking, whether swing voters shift from one party to another, and so on. Strong believers do have an effect, but it’s necessary to have raw power mass at your disposal.
As such, the question is not about “but if we be nice to our rivals, they will still be maximally evil,” but about “what’s the marginal rate that people will enter or leave our enemy’s coalition?”
Now that doesn’t mean playing along nicely all the time, but for goodness sake people should be very careful and specific in who they are targetting, and most racism is really bad at doing that.
I should return to writing Whiteout, even though my new job and some other responsibilities have left me feeling drained.
Really pisses me off that they condemn thoughts and prayers because what are tragedy mourning memes other than secular prayers performed in mass and ritualistically
God is dead, and there’s not enough water in the ocean to wipe clean the blood from our hands, but, you know, memes and stuff
The implication is “your own dumb policies caused this,” both from the Left (guns) and the Right (terrorism).
This pisses me off so, so much. Warning: what follows is not very calm. Probably not very charitable either. I write “fuck” a lot.
< caring about opinions being actually good vs being seen to be good >
Well, there’s your answer right there, isn’t it?
Scott may be the Rightful Caliph (or a contender for the position) within Rationalism and its Adjacency, but outside of our sphere, he has all sorts of markers that are low-status, or are tribal low-status, and he poses a danger to a lot of people that are farming status through toxic takes.
I mean, imagine if Rationalism became the new normal. Sure, this would probably crash a lot of metaphorical trains and the results would be observable in the global GDP, but one of the trains that got crashed would be most of the established Commentariat, their pundits, the outrage-farming, clickbaiting and so on.
New ones would likely develop in the aftermath, because Rationalism doesn’t actually remove all sorts of base human emotions. However, the new ones would be different people.
Scott’s social status is zero sum with these people. His gain is their loss. They’re going to attack, attack, attack. They may not even fully know why they’re doing it.
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.
