1721

Oh yeah God Emperor George. I hear Great Britain would have been helpless without him.

Christ soapy, we’ve been through this already: the dictionary definition is irrelevant. The “basic meaning” of the WORD is a different thing form the “basic meaning” of the ACTUAL LIVING SYSTEM OF HUMAN INTERACTIONS, of thought as it plays out, as it acts in the world, as it behaves, as people talk amongst themselves in terms of their theories.

Well I guess as long as you are the authority on what words mean we don’t have anything to concern ourselves with.

The way feminists behave is very often illiberal and inegalitarian: they seek to police speech, to alter the judicial process in an illiberal way; they purge their own, they prejudicially condemn any criticism as necessarily ill-intentioned on account of the bare gender of the critic, or if the critic is of the same sex, on the basis of an idiotic notion like “internalized misogyny”. Everything that happens proves to them that their analysis is correct, nothing could possibly prove them wrong. This is the mode of intersectional “social justice” all-round. Consider a particularly ludicrous example in recent times, the young lady who wore a hijab to test reactions. Everyone was nice to her. Did that lead her to modify her hypothesis? No, the nice behaviour was rationalized away as “overcompensating” for innate racism. The theory was saved! The same kind of doublethink is rampant in every part of the movement, with race, with gender, just as it was earlier with the strictly Marxian versions, with socioeconomic classes (e.g.every criticism is “bourgeois” and therefore to be discounted automatically).

Oh man I knew it had to be the fault of the Marxists! Fuck those guys! But what can we do to prevent their 0.4 percent of the vote and zero political representation from taking power?? Going to be a tough road ahead!

And I think you are infected by a sort of memetic flu that leads you to rationalize away everything I’m saying, that urges you to intuitively seek for false intellectual equivalences and false moral equivalences, that urges you to intuitively seek to “heresy hunt” and peer into the necessarily black heart of any doubter. All because you’re afraid of being called names - that’s the hook the virus has in your mind. More properly speaking, these kinds of bad replicators hook onto social shaming as their main mechanism of spreading - social shaming that would normally be attached to a specific, falsifiable sense of a boo/hooray word (e.g. “equality”, “rape”, “harassment”, “exploitation” etc.). One doesn’t want to flag agreement with something bad, or disagreement with something good. The mind-virus hooks onto that by smuggling in the broader, Theory-laden senses of these words, while retaining the same social shaming weight to them as was formerly attached to the specific, falsifiable senses of the terms. Bait& Switch (or Motte & Bailey).

You sure do like this mind-virus thing. Did you read some really inspiring dystopian sci-fi recently or something?

Your jargon-laced panic-attack in text form does not scan for me. I can’t rationalize the irrational. You are afraid of something utterly absurd, and at a magnitude (armageddon!) that makes it all the more absurd.

Of course liberalism is an ideology in a loose sense, but it’s not an ideology in the specific sense I’m talking about, in the sense in which ideologies all share the same quasi-religious Manichean structure in relation to a speculative, airy-fairy “source of power”.

Liberalism is absolutely an ideology. It is not different or special just because you subscribe to it.

I think if you just hold the ideal that women should be treated equally to men, then you are doing just fine. That is all feminism is and means. If that is a “mind-virus” to you I don’t know what to say.

1722

The sensible option would be a third bathroom/changing room to use.

but there are critics of that on both sides of the argument, so it ends up in endless back and forth.

1723

No, that’s not quite it Quaro, virtue signalling (in the sense that I’m using it here) works precisely because you do believe that (e.g.) equality is a good thing, and (e.g.) harassment is a bad thing, and social signalling in that context is quite normal; i.e. it’s not that there’s something wrong with virtue signalling per se.

What you don’t notice (I submit) is that when you assent or dissent to these words, the extension of the term that you’re assenting to is different from the extension you think you’re assenting to. For example, racism is a horrible, specifiable, falsifiable thing that one naturally virtue-signals that one is against. In this sense, it’s possible for someone to demonstrably be a racist or not. This is the Motte sense of the term - easily defensible, most people agree with it.

However, the sense of “racism” in Theory is vastly different, and gets its meaning from within the Theory, not from ordinary discourse. In terms of Theory, one is necessarily and automatically racist by virtue of one’s group membership, which is defined by the theory according to one’s group’s closeness to or distance from some abstract “power”; in this sense racism is something one is necessarily guilty of because of something out of one’s control, and it’s not a falsifiable concept. So you can get someone of colour claiming, “I can’t possibly be racist because I’m not white and not “privileged””. This is the Bailey sense of the term - difficult to defend, not many people would agree with it when they see it laid out explicitly.

But by virtue-signalling for the term in the Motte sense, you are unwittingly giving “air time” to the Bailey sense, i.e. you are unwittingly a carrier and repeater of Theory, of ideology. This is how the mind-virus hikes on the social signalling mechanism to spread an intrinsically divisive Bailey message that goes totally against the kind of liberalism that the Motte sense is based on (i.e. “innocent until proven guilty”, falsifiability, people’s actions are largely the result of their individual choices, etc.,etc.).

Another way of looking at it: the Theory has disguised itself as liberal, and gotten you to buy into that by using terms that you use in a Motte/liberal sense, but that the Theory (while it’s gambolling about on its own turf, so to speak) uses in a Bailey sense.

IOW, you indirectly virtue-signal your assent to the Bailey/Theory sense because you think the term is being used in the Motte/liberal sense.

The non-falsifiability of the Bailey/Theory uses of terms is what leads to the kafkaesque turn of ideologies, to purges, de-platforming, silencing of critics and calling critics “harassers”, etc.,etc. - and eventually, further down the line, to megadeaths.

1724

[snipped for redundancy - we’re going around in circles now]

I think if you just hold the ideal that women should be treated equally to men, then you are doing just fine. That is all feminism is and means.

That is what the word means, but is it what feminism actually is? All I ask is that you look into it, don’t take it for granted just because the word has that definition.

1725

On the gender bathroom- I’d say it’s honestly hard to come up with a proper standard, but South Dakota’s is clearly wrong, and that troll up in Seattle is also clearly wrong.

My standard would be : if someone is clearly identifying as the other gender then using the other bathroom is ok. That’s open to interpretation, but then again having a cut and dry standard on this is impossible. This is an issue that is important to me for personal reasons- the law should prevent situation where a person is clearly doing things to protest, but where to draw the line is just something that isn’t concrete. People shouldn’t have to carry a card stating they are trans for bathroom purposes for obvious safety reasons.

I don’t think 3rd bathrooms are a real solution either- because of the stigma of being trans (I’ll just say every transperson I’ve met IRL takes great efforts to pass and avoids publicly being trans) only transfolk would use those bathrooms, especially in juvenile environments, so that is also a problem. My main concern is protecting the ability of transfolk to not be outed.

1726

Something tells me that is not the Irigaray definition either. Indeed, Valenti’s theories on gender justice put forward in certain matters, in the eyes of law, the womans voice should be the sole voice. It’s a broad spectrum.

Egalitarian notions are closer to the equity feminism from Sommers and the like, and currently she is a heretic in the eyes of the noisier types. If you say you have read Greer, Bindel, Sommers and Reilly-Cooper, and you agree with their definitions of feminism, and their views on feminism, will people agree with you that you support feminism?

1727

Yes.

So clearly you must have been deeply affected by something to arrive at your current panicked state. Why do you believe that all feminists are guilty by association because of some radical fringe that scares you? What happened to you personally?

1728

You are mistaken.

There are two generally accepted definitions of racist. One amounts to “racism = racial prejudice”, which of course is applicable to anyone. The other makes a distinction between prejudice and racism: “racism = prejudice + power”. This formula is often preferred by sociologists because they are interested in the effects of racism, and prejudice without power basically has no effect.

The second formula usually implies that blacks currently can’t be racist, because they usually lack the power to influence institutions to favor them. However, it does not imply that all whites are “automatically racist”.

1729

You haven’t spent much time around academia lately have you? There, at least, “Feminism” has become synonymous with intersectionality.

1730

99% of the population doesn’t spend much time around academia. Also again the jargon/code you use to obfuscate what you are talking about is not helpful.

1731

and outside of feminism, how is identity politics countering anti-racism? Not very well.

It’s time we acknowledged that Oxford’s student left is institutionally antisemitic

This type of rhetoric is not confined to OULC. Leftwing student leaders have rallied against “any Rothschild” and “Zios” in their Facebook statuses. One of Oxford’s online political forums removed members with Jewish sounding surnames from the group. In another group, a member called for Jews to pack their bags and leave the Middle East. One notable far-left student politician said, “I don’t like being smeared as antisemitic, but I don’t bleed from it either.”

As a Jewish student, Labour voter and someone who identifies with progressive politics, I am aghast at the direction Oxford’s student left has taken. This is now the student left of radical socialism, of no-platforming, of identity politics and of antisemitism. Beneath the OULC headlines lies an intellectual structure that legitimises and reproduces antisemitism at a rate of knots.

At the centre of radical left antisemitism is its theory of racial oppression. The radical left holds anti-racism as a core principle and conceives of oppression through a binary of oppressors v oppressed, of whiteness v people of colour. It is a theory that has many merits, but when applied to Jews it becomes a quagmire of prejudice.

This is story is headlining. OULC is seen by many as a starting point for Labours leadership. and Hodges, a Labour stalwart admittedly very much a Corbyn opponent, puts forward the question, Is the Labour Party’s problem with racism beyond repair?

Whether or not Corbyn, as Labour Leader, does anyhing about this is unlikely, he has given platform and supported anti-Semites up to and including Holocaust Deniers. The Stop the War and SWP lead Momentum groups are also key in driving the wave of anti-Semitism embedding itself in the institutional Left. These entities are not powerless student bodies, but advisors and policy makers standing at the side of the Leader of The Opposition Party.

I acknowledge that BDS is not identity politics, and identity politics is not BDS, but the two are intertwined, as social justice, intersectionality, race theory and privilege are at the core of the BDS movements beliefs, and the Palestine and Islamist societies are core allies of the various identity based societies. I also acknowledge that not all BDS supporters are anti-Semitic, but there are some genuine issues in this movement. Even for those who say they condemn anti-Semitic behaviour, why is this not being purged from the movement? It’s not as if they don’t have the predilection, tools and culture in place to remove problematic individuals.

This writer analyses the identity driven language and jargonbeing used to disguise and normalise the attacks on British Jews.

and not just Jews are in danger from the regressives, even anti-racism campaigners can now be called islamophobes. This is Nick Lowles of HOPE Not Hate, one of the most modern anti-racist organisations at the absolute front line of countering anti-racism today. They have been key in dealing with UKIP, EDL and Pegida demonstrations out on the streets over the last few years.

1732

You know, a normal discussion between two people starts with some sort of common ground for what words mean. Without that, there is really no point to the discussion.

I realize the Twitterverse is a different place. Rather than fostering discussion, its main purpose is to disseminate one’s very important tweets to friend and foe alike. But as far as I can tell, the main conclusion of your apocalyptic Theory is that such open fora, lacking any rules of discussion, will eventually break down into smaller communities with agreed-upon standards. RIP, I guess.

Now, pwk, prove me right with another outrageous Twitter screencap. WHEN WILL THOSE IDIOTS UNDERSTAND???

1733

“Racism=prejudice+power” is precisely what I’m talking about, it’s a Bailey/Theory sense of the term that makes it possible for someone to be racially prejudiced without being racially prejudiced. Doublethink.

When I say “automatically racist”, I mean as soon as someone speaks up about, e.g., a black person being obviously racist against a white person, that type of criticism would be understood as automatically racist (because of the privilege component, the criticism appears as prejudice). Just like with gamergate, even though the majority of gamergaters are liberal, not sexist, etc., the movement as a whole must necessarily be misogynist, as seen through the lens of intersectional feminism; un-coordinated criticism from hundreds of people flooding your inbox is interpreted as “harassment” (when “harassment” normally, in its Motte sense, applies to a sustained, repeated effort from one person).

But the doublethink can go even deeper, as per that young lady’s experiment I mentioned: even when people were nice to her in her hijab, that was interpreted as covering up for covert racism. There is no falsifiability, no possibility of being proved wrong and changing your mind. Granted that’s probably an extreme example (and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of her peers are dubious about it) but that’s the kind of kafkaesque poisoning of the well that intersectional “social justice” thinking creates.

And although that isn’t apocalyptic in and of itself, it’s the sort of logic that gradually purges moderates, gradually pushes towards extremism and leaves the dregs, and people with genuinely evil intent, in charge; and when such a movement gets political power, the inevitable outcome of it is the kind of scenario we saw repeated again and again with movements called “Communist” in the 20th century.

Only now we have nuclear weapons.

1734

No, it makes it possible for someone to be racially prejudiced without being racist. Because the words don’t necessarily mean the same thing.

When I say “automatically racist”, I mean as soon as someone speaks up about, e.g., a black person being obviously racist against a white person, that type of criticism would be understood as automatically racist (because of the privilege component, the criticism appears as prejudice).

Again, this happens because you refuse to agree on common language with other people. To them, a black person can be prejudiced but cannot be racist.

un-coordinated criticism from hundreds of people flooding your inbox is interpreted as “harassment” (when “harassment” normally, in its Motte sense, applies to a sustained, repeated effort from one person).

That is not the normal use of “harassment”. Legally, one episode of unwanted contact is may be sufficient. In the literary sense, more than one person may be involved (e.g. military harassment of enemy forces).

There is no falsifiability, no possibility of being proved wrong and changing your mind.

And here is the problem. You are starting with the premise that you have the right to prove others wrong, the right to try to change the minds of strangers.

But some people do not want to change their minds, they do not want to be proven wrong, and they are not interested in what you have to say. That’s their right. Just leave them alone.

1735

Sorry to interrupt the logomachy, but this seemed like a appropriate place to put this article from today’s WaPo on Zoe Quinn and her faltering efforts to pursue legal action against the more fanatical elements of Gamergate.

Nothing exceptionally new in the article other than the fact that she appears to have been so worn down by the relentless threats that she’s giving up her legal suit against the guy with all the vowels in his name.

1736

I think if you speak up in support of fascism, people are going assume you have a racial agenda because of historical fact. Similarly, flying a swasitka flag or a Confererate battle flag is going to evoke a certain reaction of people because of the historical use of such symbols. Gamergate is similar, since the movement is de facto rooted in misogyny, carrying it’s banner does tend to taint you by association.

If you really are super concerned about ethics in game journalism (a cause that is less laughable than your fear of radical feminists mind you, but still pretty laughable) then you really have no need of gamergate to campaign against that since they aren’t really doing anything meaningful in that department. I think actually they are just harassing specific women full time these days.

If you feel like I am minimizing your concerns, you feel correctly. You know how they say if you are content creator you should never read internet comments about your content? Well maybe you should unplug for awhile and stop thinking and reading about the bogeymen that plague you.

And although that isn’t apocalyptic in and of itself, it’s the sort of logic that gradually purges moderates, gradually pushes towards extremism and leaves the dregs, and people with genuinely evil intent, in charge; and when such a movement gets political power, the inevitable outcome of it is the kind of scenario we saw repeated again and again with movements called “Communist” in the 20th century.

You mean the communism that progressively moderated and moderated and moderated until it vanished?

Only now we have nuclear weapons.

Leaving aside the absurdity that you fear an evil extremst feminist cabal getting ahold of a nuclear stockpile, Communists have had nuclear weapons for 60 years. We’re all still here. Needless to say that the ideological particulars of capitalism and communism are not significant in a real world sense when it comes to world powers jockeying for hegemony. If that didn’t kill us, then radical academic fringe movements and islamofascist terror-cults probably won’t manage the job either.

1737

I had to read that to see if you meant her ex-boyfriend, who instigated the whole mess. Looks like it. It does seem to me he should be liable for something, even if it was something in civil court, but I guess she has chose to let it go.

1738

Caitlyn Jenner’s line is all over my Google News feed today: “I have gotten more flack for being a conservative Republican than I have for being trans.”

It seemed appropriate for this thread.

There was some researcher who said in most parts of the country it was harder to come out as Christian than gay, but I think it was a conservative think-tank so I figured it wouldn’t gain much traction.

These statements do seem intuitively obvious in a lot of circles, though I’m sure there are still large pockets of holdouts where it’s the other way around.

1739

Yeah, I’m going to call bullshit on that one. If that was actually the case why would Trump be stirring up such a verbal war over his Christian bonafides (which are lacking), while hypocritically calling out Cruz for his lack (then this week condemning the Pope for calling him out for acting unchristian).

1740

I find that idea hard to believe based on data such as this, which implies that most of the country (70%) is Christian.

DpDl57s.png420×714