One can’t defeat ethnonationalism by supporting it for minority groups and foreigners. That just makes one a rival ethnonationalist.
In such a case, ethnonationalism has already been accepted as valid, it’s just a matter of haggling over who is allowed to practice it.
I’m still puzzled by those on the Left who don’t understand the rise in White Nationalism.
What exactly did they expect when they were cheering on “demographic destiny”? When their ideology required them to excuse terror attacks and look away from mass sex crimes? When the rurals were thrown under the bus in favor of corporations and globalization? When governing in the national interests went from an unspoken assumption to ‘chauvinism’? When the woman accompanying Charles Murray went to the hospital after the no-platforming to check on her injuries? When a foreign ideology hostile to LGBTs was excused from all criticism because of the race of who practiced it?
Will it be any mystery if Asians leave the coalition over getting smacked by Affirmative Action? Will it be any mystery if Blacks leave the coalition because tighter immigration restrictions make it easier for them to get jobs, and school vouchers make it possible to send their children to schools with problem students filtered out? Will it be any mystery if those who immigrated legally leave the coalition because it undermines what they managed to do? If centrists leave because of the support for open borders?
There is one movement that will never make white men its enemy and will never attempt to replace them. And they’re flowing towards it and its potential for ultraviolence, while it’s being cheered on by people who should know better.
The potential for damage, including to people who had no part in this, is catastrophic. How can they be demobilized by people that have nothing to offer them? Who are themselves hypocritical sexists and racists? Who excuse the same actions they condemn them for?
I liked pretending the cracks in Liberalism didn’t exist, but, collectively, that might have allowed the situation to get this far.
This cartoon, published in The New Yorker, is upsetting men today. The cartoonist is Will McPhail, who is good at capturing the moment.
U mad bro? U mad? Plz? Mad plz?
*reads description to the side of it* “It says here the artist meant X.”
Alternately: “I think/Perhaps it means X.”
Do you get the same response as if you were bloviating? If so, stage exit left.
It’s hilarious because the cartoon by itself reads as an insult to the woman, who is offering bait and switch conversational tactics. It’s super easy to imagine this exact cartoon being written by some anti-feminist, critiquing the conversational traps men have to deal with.
(Not to mention the heuristic that “if only one person is speaking in a cartoon, they are usually the punchline.”)
But, because of the context (a high profile cosmopolitan yet very bland and conformist magazine), audiences assume it must be criticizing the silent male, and that it is also doing so unfairly. So they both presume the nature of the joke, then criticize it for delivering it badly.
Weird.
@youzicha replied to your text post
is it really so weird? As e.g. agoodcartoon illustrates, political cartoons can often be read two ways and you need to use information about where it was published to pin down how many layers of irony it was on. If this one was explicitly targetting the woman, presumably (a different subset of) people would still hate it. Either way, it seems the artist is just trolling us.
I did not mean the cartoon was weird, so much as the reaction, which as you say seems to depend on the idea that the cartoon is “trolling” us.
What’s weird is to see a cartoon, and rather than read the message that is there, to do a two step process whereby you assume there is another message (hating men) and complain that it is delivered badly. (And indeed, it does not read as a convincing denunciation of mansplaining at all.)
Had the joke more effectively critiqued mansplaining (”When I said the picture had multiple possible meanings, I wasn’t asking you to tell me which was the right one,”) then their would have been less offense taken, which is really quite ironic.
How is fascism going to survive past 2040 when whites are literally no longer even the majority and the GOP has lost the majority vote in every demographic outside of white voters?
Fascists can juke and dance all they want but if they can’t get the majority vote of POCs and women I’m not seeing a long-term future for them. Those numbers make for a very high and deep wall.
The definition of White has expanded in previous eras. Trump’s goal of reducing immigration will help slow the rate of demographic transition, which will help the right-wing since many immigrants often slowly become more anti-immigration over time.
There are two other options, which can potentially be pursued simultaneously.
(tagging @sighinastorm since you reblogged the previous one.)
White Americans aged 80+ vs. White Americans aged 0-4 by county.
I think this means the country is growing to be less white and that makes me happy
The actual non-racist response is to be indifferent. If all races are equal, and equally valuable, then a reduction in the percentage of whites is something to be neither celebrated nor pitied.
And indeed, we have many loyal, hard-working citizens of many races in this country.
But I’m coming around to the idea of contradictions in ideology.
The language required for the diversity arguments implicitly accepts some of the frame premises of the White Nationalists, but refuses to engage with them.
I literally don’t care what this post makes White Nationalists think, since they should all be 6 feet in the fucking ground
This was literally just a casual comment on how I enjoy diversity, why are people still reblogging it with 9 page arguments 3 or 4 months later
You should care because even though their ideology will be technologically obsolete within about 30 years thanks to advancements in genetic engineering, they are capable of doing damage in the meantime, and reckless behavior by their opponents is increasing their numbers. If WNs enact violence I will be obligated to fight them to ensure the civil order of the United States, but if others fight the WNs I will have to fight them instead for the same reason. Since violence is out as an option, that leaves deconversion or at the very least not making more of them. Right now the Left is making more of them.
As for your post, it’s getting reblogged because, while casual, it’s a good simple example of the contradictions within pro-diversity Neoliberalism.
White Americans aged 80+ vs. White Americans aged 0-4 by county.
I think this means the country is growing to be less white and that makes me happy
The actual non-racist response is to be indifferent. If all races are equal, and equally valuable, then a reduction in the percentage of whites is something to be neither celebrated nor pitied.
And indeed, we have many loyal, hard-working citizens of many races in this country.
But I’m coming around to the idea of contradictions in ideology.
The language required for the diversity arguments implicitly accepts some of the frame premises of the White Nationalists, but refuses to engage with them.
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.
I reasoned the PC stuff was like antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It doesn’t matter today, it doesn’t matter tomorrow, but one day, 30 years from now, multi-drug-resistant TB develops and the problems pile on and on from there.
…but if you can keep developing new antibiotics fast enough to keep up with it, you can sort-of ignore your bad practices and the collateral damage they cause.
I thought that’s what was happening, and that the reckoning wasn’t going to be until 2028, as the result of a slowly building fire of, well, various mens’ movements refusing to comply with male gender roles (something already in progress at the fringes). Instead the tension was lurking beneath the surface across multiple axes, but the media didn’t want to talk about it and people would be socially punished for talking about it sometimes, so it wasn’t as visible.
I’d like to think there is some new path where the word “Racism” can be made powerful again, but I cannot find it. It would require socially punishing false accusations of racism, which simply isn’t feasible under the current ideological framework. I’m not one to buy into the “Contradictions of $Ideology” idea much, (since most of the people pushing it are Communists ignoring the ‘contradictions’ essentially inevitable to their own system,) but I think this is partially a case of that.
In some ways I welcome the Populism, though. My estimate of corporate oligarchy and permanent majority has declined significantly.
this is literally the only poll we need to understand the Gamer Demographic
everyone hates them and sees everything about them – no matter what it is – as justification to express more contempt for them, as seen in the comments on this post. seems like an accurate assessment
35% is less than half of 50%. there is nothing contemptible or even wrong in any sense of the word about 35% of a group thinking they are smarter than average for the group – it is, in fact, not only less than the number of people who are smarter than average for the group, it is much less than the number of people in general who say they are smarter than average. despite there being nothing wrong with this at all whatsoever in any capacity in any dimension, it is put forth as being self-evident proof of the contemptibility of gamers, and understood by the vast majority of the notes as self-evident proof of the contemptibility of gamers. other people feel and express contempt for them, not for anything they did or did not do, but because it is inherently emotionally rewarding to feel and express contempt for them. there is nothing they can do or not do to stop this from happening, as they are unpopular, and all that is necessary for an unpopular person to be unpopular forever is that they are unpopular. that sounds pretty unlucky to me.
just a reminder that life is not worth tolerating, and life will never be worth tolerating, ever, ever, ever, under any circumstances, in any projected future situation, for any length of time, ever.
You know why the US has basically had blacks turn into their own ethnic group? They realized they would not ascend to the top of the social hierarchy after all that racialized bull the South pulled, among other things. So they defined their own hierarchy.
Gamers also defined their own hierarchy. Outsiders tried to hijack it, but they failed. The world is fragmenting into thousands of hierarchies, and the power of the mainstream ones is weakening. Even among the SJ types that attempted the hijack.
But there’s a real, and significant, segment of his supporters who voted for him because of, not in spite of, the racism, misogyny, and fascist policy.
Do you know the logic behind the US government releasing Tor to the public? It’s along the lines of the following - if the only people that use Tor are American spies, than any US agent found using onion routing software will be outed. If many people use Tor for a variety of activities, then the presence of onion routing software could mean anything from ordinary local black market dealings to just being paranoid.
The signal is hidden in the noise.
Well, congratulations, because that can also happen unintentionally as a Tragedy of the Commons with words such as “racism” and “misogyny”. People were told to be careful with overusing the terms, but haha, like that was going to happen. Besides, the people questioning the use of such terms were the Oppressors, right? They should be mocked for “freeze peach”, right?
Now the overuse of antibiotics has created a strain of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Oops.
