HERE is an article about the problem of cultural appropriation.
Or rather, it very adroitly explains why "cultural appropriation" is mostly a pile of horse hockey.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
The Dead And The Undead
History is replete with examples of marginalized people and people groups who have suffered genuine injustices. Women have often found themselves at a disadvantage politically and economically in societies across the planet and throughout time. They still do in most of the non-westernized, non-industrialized world (though progressive fabulists will have you believe that it is largely a crime of the west and that we should somehow look to times and places that in reality still suffer some of the worst human rights abuses). Brown (or "black") people have suffered in the West in recent centuries without a doubt. No serious minded student of history denies this, shockingly even among the vast majority of "right" leaning members of society who are accused of hate for "people of color" (as if being non-brown makes one what?... clear?...). But long before the majority of oppressed races in the west were brown, there were millennia of white people oppressing other white people... and brown people oppressing brown people. White people from the West (along with the brown members of their societies) have been getting in the way of brown on brown genocides and human rights debacles in Africa and Asia regularly for over a century now, unless we are progressive, and then we don't talk about that.
The point is, that serious people don't deny that marginalization has happened, and still happens, and that it is wrong. Where progressives and non-progressives differ, is largely a matter of how we determine wrong from right. And that makes all the difference.
Justice the thing that is wanting when a marginalized group is oppressed (which means THIS). But
not all discrimination is bad. Marginalizing bad things and bad actors is good - we may differ on what is bad and good, but the problem then becomes not whether we should marginalize, but rather what we marginalize based on what is objectively true. There is the rub, as, leftism is so often woven inextricably with relativism that truth is thrown out the window in favor of political power based ultimately on the idol of self. We have the law of the jungle by any other name, and human history is replete with examples of the horror that follows that.
It has been observed that there is nothing new to learn, but only to be retaught to each new generation. What we find here, is that while we have buried the leftist wight many times before, we have to keep facing the ravenous hunger of the thing that rises from the grave over and over, making more undead in it's wake. This is a political zombie apocalypse, and we are in the midst of that war.
The point is, that serious people don't deny that marginalization has happened, and still happens, and that it is wrong. Where progressives and non-progressives differ, is largely a matter of how we determine wrong from right. And that makes all the difference.
Justice the thing that is wanting when a marginalized group is oppressed (which means THIS). But
not all discrimination is bad. Marginalizing bad things and bad actors is good - we may differ on what is bad and good, but the problem then becomes not whether we should marginalize, but rather what we marginalize based on what is objectively true. There is the rub, as, leftism is so often woven inextricably with relativism that truth is thrown out the window in favor of political power based ultimately on the idol of self. We have the law of the jungle by any other name, and human history is replete with examples of the horror that follows that.
It has been observed that there is nothing new to learn, but only to be retaught to each new generation. What we find here, is that while we have buried the leftist wight many times before, we have to keep facing the ravenous hunger of the thing that rises from the grave over and over, making more undead in it's wake. This is a political zombie apocalypse, and we are in the midst of that war.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Magical Thinking Nonsense From SJWs
HERE is another article by a well intended SJW, who nonetheless seems utterly ignorant about the topic of which he speaks.
The short of it is this:
Things like the Hermetic type of magic in World of Darkness games and D&D’s rote magic have never set my imagination on fire. Mind you, I don’t think they are bad, exactly. They just never rang ‘true’ for me. They never had that sense of verisimilitude that never has anything to do with reality, but rather how real something feels.
And magic in the hands of the already enfranchised never feels ‘real’ to me. Why would a guy like Harry Dresden need to search for another source of power, for instance? He’s a white, straight, good-looking dude. He’s 99 percent of the way there. Or Harry Potter for that matter? Or Dr. Strange? Yes, they have challenges. But in the context of the greater society, their challenges are ones that almost tailor-made for resolution within the existing power structure.
While WOD certainly takes it's liberties for the benefit of gamifying magic, it actually does base Hermetic magic in the game on historical Hermetic magical thinking. And, oh-by-the-way, Hermetic magic never really had anything to do with SJ (silly fellow).
For that matter, it was merely a codification of the sort of looser magical thinking that every culture across the planet through history has practiced. And, oh-by-the-way, that sort of magical thinking, while culturally detailed, was practiced and thought about by all sorts of people of every different color, race, and sex. The wizard was on the margins, because they were weird and not entirely understood, not the other way round. I will concede the possibility that in some cases, marginalized folk took up the practice, but it was undoubtedly for the same reasons that rich non-marginalized people in other times and places did: they had a lust for power that they did not possess.
There are no new sins, and humans across the board have them. Every one of the seven deadly sins is held in the hearts of humans in both marginal and non-marginal social positions, and because we are sinful, we seek a way to "cheat" the universe in order to get what we can't otherwise.
This article is a load of crap.
The short of it is this:
Things like the Hermetic type of magic in World of Darkness games and D&D’s rote magic have never set my imagination on fire. Mind you, I don’t think they are bad, exactly. They just never rang ‘true’ for me. They never had that sense of verisimilitude that never has anything to do with reality, but rather how real something feels.
And magic in the hands of the already enfranchised never feels ‘real’ to me. Why would a guy like Harry Dresden need to search for another source of power, for instance? He’s a white, straight, good-looking dude. He’s 99 percent of the way there. Or Harry Potter for that matter? Or Dr. Strange? Yes, they have challenges. But in the context of the greater society, their challenges are ones that almost tailor-made for resolution within the existing power structure.
While WOD certainly takes it's liberties for the benefit of gamifying magic, it actually does base Hermetic magic in the game on historical Hermetic magical thinking. And, oh-by-the-way, Hermetic magic never really had anything to do with SJ (silly fellow).
For that matter, it was merely a codification of the sort of looser magical thinking that every culture across the planet through history has practiced. And, oh-by-the-way, that sort of magical thinking, while culturally detailed, was practiced and thought about by all sorts of people of every different color, race, and sex. The wizard was on the margins, because they were weird and not entirely understood, not the other way round. I will concede the possibility that in some cases, marginalized folk took up the practice, but it was undoubtedly for the same reasons that rich non-marginalized people in other times and places did: they had a lust for power that they did not possess.
There are no new sins, and humans across the board have them. Every one of the seven deadly sins is held in the hearts of humans in both marginal and non-marginal social positions, and because we are sinful, we seek a way to "cheat" the universe in order to get what we can't otherwise.
This article is a load of crap.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
"Toxic" Masculinity
I was reading a post by a very thoughtful and creative guy. His opinions on tech, backpacks, productivity, and game design (especially game design) are all insightful and worth reading.
However, he has swallowed the intersectional kool-aid and posts about it often. This is thoughtful but foolish, as is nearly everything intersectional because the worldview is built on a foundation of sand.
Wikipedia defines "toxic" masculinity thus:
The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology and gender studies to refer to certain norms of masculine behavior in North America and Europe that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Scholars argue that the socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.
Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance abuse. Toxic masculine traits are characteristic of the unspoken code of behavior among men in American prisons, where they exist in part as a response to the harsh conditions of prison life.
Notice of course the anti-western political bias lurking in there. We are to believe that domineering, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, and emotionally repressed behavior is somehow an invention of modern Western societies. We are not to look behind the curtain at the rest of history or the rest of the world's non-western societies even if they are more violent, more misogynistic, more intolerant of homosexuals, and more emotionally repressed, and because we are talking intersectionally, this not looking goes double if the society is some shade of brown. We certainly should not look at the Western writings of pagan thinker Marcus Aurelius for example, or the concept of virtus held as an ideal by Roman men (composed of prudence, bravery, justice, and self-restraint). The candid accounts of Moses, David, Elijah, Jesus of Nazareth, or Paul, and later Thomas Aquinus who, a Roman, synthesized virtus and Christian virtues. Intersectional historians in their shoddy way, fail to note that it is when men cease to behave with these masculine traits and adopt the opposite that they become useless to society and feckless to the women and children of their society, and their society inevitably gets buried in ashes.
I will go so far as to say that when men in a society become more interested in becoming like the women, or being dominated by women, that is where the real toxic draft is swallowed. And believing the definition of toxic masculinity is both intellectually dishonest, and morally cowardly, and therefore has no place in a society that wishes to endure. It is the thing that kills genuine masculinity by seeking to feminize boys, failing to equip them with the strong masculine identity that they need to act as dependable, self-controlled, and self-sacrificing members of the society that they serve.
If buying expensive beard oil (composed of olive oil with oak scent) is a sign of toxic masculinity, and getting tips from gay men on making your own inexpensive version buys you the indulgence of not being toxic, you have swallowed the kool-aid. The reality is that this does not make you toxically masculine... it makes you a shallow thinker, and a sucker to the marketers. One has to wonder with that rule in mind, why we don't consider isles of expensive women's products (often designed by and marketed by women) as an example of "toxic" femininity? But we are not allowed to ask that, because... toxic masculinity is to blame.
I call bullshit.
However, he has swallowed the intersectional kool-aid and posts about it often. This is thoughtful but foolish, as is nearly everything intersectional because the worldview is built on a foundation of sand.
Wikipedia defines "toxic" masculinity thus:
The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology and gender studies to refer to certain norms of masculine behavior in North America and Europe that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Scholars argue that the socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.
Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance abuse. Toxic masculine traits are characteristic of the unspoken code of behavior among men in American prisons, where they exist in part as a response to the harsh conditions of prison life.
Notice of course the anti-western political bias lurking in there. We are to believe that domineering, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, and emotionally repressed behavior is somehow an invention of modern Western societies. We are not to look behind the curtain at the rest of history or the rest of the world's non-western societies even if they are more violent, more misogynistic, more intolerant of homosexuals, and more emotionally repressed, and because we are talking intersectionally, this not looking goes double if the society is some shade of brown. We certainly should not look at the Western writings of pagan thinker Marcus Aurelius for example, or the concept of virtus held as an ideal by Roman men (composed of prudence, bravery, justice, and self-restraint). The candid accounts of Moses, David, Elijah, Jesus of Nazareth, or Paul, and later Thomas Aquinus who, a Roman, synthesized virtus and Christian virtues. Intersectional historians in their shoddy way, fail to note that it is when men cease to behave with these masculine traits and adopt the opposite that they become useless to society and feckless to the women and children of their society, and their society inevitably gets buried in ashes.
I will go so far as to say that when men in a society become more interested in becoming like the women, or being dominated by women, that is where the real toxic draft is swallowed. And believing the definition of toxic masculinity is both intellectually dishonest, and morally cowardly, and therefore has no place in a society that wishes to endure. It is the thing that kills genuine masculinity by seeking to feminize boys, failing to equip them with the strong masculine identity that they need to act as dependable, self-controlled, and self-sacrificing members of the society that they serve.
If buying expensive beard oil (composed of olive oil with oak scent) is a sign of toxic masculinity, and getting tips from gay men on making your own inexpensive version buys you the indulgence of not being toxic, you have swallowed the kool-aid. The reality is that this does not make you toxically masculine... it makes you a shallow thinker, and a sucker to the marketers. One has to wonder with that rule in mind, why we don't consider isles of expensive women's products (often designed by and marketed by women) as an example of "toxic" femininity? But we are not allowed to ask that, because... toxic masculinity is to blame.
I call bullshit.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
"Male Privilege" Meets Hard Facts
A few hard numbers:
- women are more likely than men to graduate from high school
- only 44% of undergraduates at community and four year colleges are men
- female college students have higher grade point averages than men
- more women below 30 have a bachelor's degree
- more women have advanced degrees
- 3/4 of the 8 million jobs lost during the recession were men
- there are more women in the workforce now than men
- 1/3 of millennial men live at home with their parents
If men are the oppressor class, why do men:
- suffer lower life expectancy in general (on average 5 years fewer) than women
- suffer nearly 8 out of 10 suicides
- do the overwhelming majority of dangerous, damaging, or lethal jobs in the workforce
- suffer 9 out of 10 crippling or lethal injuries at work
- suffer twice as many violent crimes as a group
- suffer 7 out of 10 murders as a group
- suffer more sustained harassment, physical threats, and offensive language as a group
- suffer 9 out of 10 incarcerations
- suffer 63% longer sentences for the same crimes as women
- make up about 60% of the homeless
- perform over 80% of combat operations
As an oppressor class, men are less educated, more victimized, and shorter lived than those whom they supposedly oppress.
If higher education, lower rates of victimization, and longer, healthier lives are not counted as privilege by those who enjoy them... what the hell are they?
- women are more likely than men to graduate from high school
- only 44% of undergraduates at community and four year colleges are men
- female college students have higher grade point averages than men
- more women below 30 have a bachelor's degree
- more women have advanced degrees
- 3/4 of the 8 million jobs lost during the recession were men
- there are more women in the workforce now than men
- 1/3 of millennial men live at home with their parents
If men are the oppressor class, why do men:
- suffer lower life expectancy in general (on average 5 years fewer) than women
- suffer nearly 8 out of 10 suicides
- do the overwhelming majority of dangerous, damaging, or lethal jobs in the workforce
- suffer 9 out of 10 crippling or lethal injuries at work
- suffer twice as many violent crimes as a group
- suffer 7 out of 10 murders as a group
- suffer more sustained harassment, physical threats, and offensive language as a group
- suffer 9 out of 10 incarcerations
- suffer 63% longer sentences for the same crimes as women
- make up about 60% of the homeless
- perform over 80% of combat operations
As an oppressor class, men are less educated, more victimized, and shorter lived than those whom they supposedly oppress.
If higher education, lower rates of victimization, and longer, healthier lives are not counted as privilege by those who enjoy them... what the hell are they?
Monday, March 26, 2018
Questions Of Difference
There is a body of people in America (and throughout the western
world), that has a peculiar worldview, that at every turn notes an
injustice that it nobly claims to stand against, and then acts in ways
that inevitably do exactly the opposite, either promoting the injustice
that exists, or replacing it with another.
My questions for those who hold this worldview include these:
You say you believe in free speech...
...but you insist that disagreeable words are as harmful as a physical assault, and therefore ban any words that are "hateful", or "-phobic". You demand "safe spaces" from "trigger words" that might make anyone uncomfortable, rather than promoting a mature intellectual and emotional resiliance to hear or read, and assess words accordingly to either ignore or accept reasonably. Why?
You say you deplore the practice of labeling and categorizing people or ideas...
...but you insist at every turn in manufacturing more and more new labels and categories every day to put into an intersectional matrix, to carefully label, categorize, and put into a box everyone according to their degree of guilt and offense. New categories must in turn be invented with new hyphens and pronouns to describe every possible exemption to balance the scales should you find yourself not inclined to be in a box. Why
You insist that you believe in tolerance and inclusiveness...
...but you show no compunctions about excluding and insulting those who don't agree with your ideology regardless of whether or not it was done with civility, respect, and reason. You are perfectly willing to disenfranchise hundreds of a majority group on no other basis but their label (not their individual behavior), for one or two of a prefered categorical label. This preferential treatment is supposedly not a privilege but rather resisting oppression. Why?
You make loud assurance of your commitment to being open minded, and call for more communication and understanding...
...but you readily assume those who merely disagree with you are ignorant, bigoted, and oppressive. When asked for explanations or information, you generally excuse your rude, spiteful, or condescending answers, or avoid the issue altogether with the curt evasion that it is not your job to educate your interlocutor. Intolerant shunning usually ensues, with forgiveness out of the question. Why?
You often suggest that your worldview is the view of the intelligent, just, and moral...
...but you deny that truth is defined in any objective sense, instead insisting that reality is actually the interplay between competing narratives, the goal of which is ultimately political/economic power, and that those who hold more than others are inevitably violent, oppressive, and unjust to those around them. You assume some gnostic enlightenment in your worldview which is itself nothing more than one narrative in a sea of others, and yet don't question your own actions even when they exactly resemble those of factions you excoriate. Why?
You readily condemn America and it's largest historic labeled category of population as being unforgivably predatory, selfish, and destructive...
...but seem to never get around to acknowledging that the same imperfect people group and nation has also been through their efforts the most prosperous and subsequently the most generous nation in all of human history, has in the last hundred years been the greatest defender of democratic freedom, humanitarian behavior, intellectual and material advancement, and promoter of human unity to boot. That nation has indeed been imperfect, and has still had the courage to try and fail rather than not try at all, even for those who have given nothing for the prosperity they enjoy so abundantly that they can afford to spend time and resources to attack it. Why?
I have a different view. I have the humility to acknowledge that while I have not yet found any credible reason to espouse the particular worldview I differ with, that it is worth talking about becase so many people do endorse it. I have the peculiar view that all human beings are inclined to be pretty crappy to each other by nature, and yet we individually have the choice to not be. This choice has nothing inherently to do with any particular sex, race, skin color, or nationality. Humans of all stripes can make (and do make) both good and bad, True and False choices. We are all sinful. As such we can all recognize our individual flaws and try to equally apply the practice of not treating our fellow humans with dishonesty, wrath, envy, or lust. We can disagree with them, and yet forgive them when they behave badly to us. These are taller orders I'm sure than the orders that the opposing crowd marches to... it is always easier to take a group of people you don't like and hate them because their different ideology excuses your behavior... but it is not nobler.
My questions for those who hold this worldview include these:
You say you believe in free speech...
...but you insist that disagreeable words are as harmful as a physical assault, and therefore ban any words that are "hateful", or "-phobic". You demand "safe spaces" from "trigger words" that might make anyone uncomfortable, rather than promoting a mature intellectual and emotional resiliance to hear or read, and assess words accordingly to either ignore or accept reasonably. Why?
You say you deplore the practice of labeling and categorizing people or ideas...
...but you insist at every turn in manufacturing more and more new labels and categories every day to put into an intersectional matrix, to carefully label, categorize, and put into a box everyone according to their degree of guilt and offense. New categories must in turn be invented with new hyphens and pronouns to describe every possible exemption to balance the scales should you find yourself not inclined to be in a box. Why
You insist that you believe in tolerance and inclusiveness...
...but you show no compunctions about excluding and insulting those who don't agree with your ideology regardless of whether or not it was done with civility, respect, and reason. You are perfectly willing to disenfranchise hundreds of a majority group on no other basis but their label (not their individual behavior), for one or two of a prefered categorical label. This preferential treatment is supposedly not a privilege but rather resisting oppression. Why?
You make loud assurance of your commitment to being open minded, and call for more communication and understanding...
...but you readily assume those who merely disagree with you are ignorant, bigoted, and oppressive. When asked for explanations or information, you generally excuse your rude, spiteful, or condescending answers, or avoid the issue altogether with the curt evasion that it is not your job to educate your interlocutor. Intolerant shunning usually ensues, with forgiveness out of the question. Why?
You often suggest that your worldview is the view of the intelligent, just, and moral...
...but you deny that truth is defined in any objective sense, instead insisting that reality is actually the interplay between competing narratives, the goal of which is ultimately political/economic power, and that those who hold more than others are inevitably violent, oppressive, and unjust to those around them. You assume some gnostic enlightenment in your worldview which is itself nothing more than one narrative in a sea of others, and yet don't question your own actions even when they exactly resemble those of factions you excoriate. Why?
You readily condemn America and it's largest historic labeled category of population as being unforgivably predatory, selfish, and destructive...
...but seem to never get around to acknowledging that the same imperfect people group and nation has also been through their efforts the most prosperous and subsequently the most generous nation in all of human history, has in the last hundred years been the greatest defender of democratic freedom, humanitarian behavior, intellectual and material advancement, and promoter of human unity to boot. That nation has indeed been imperfect, and has still had the courage to try and fail rather than not try at all, even for those who have given nothing for the prosperity they enjoy so abundantly that they can afford to spend time and resources to attack it. Why?
I have a different view. I have the humility to acknowledge that while I have not yet found any credible reason to espouse the particular worldview I differ with, that it is worth talking about becase so many people do endorse it. I have the peculiar view that all human beings are inclined to be pretty crappy to each other by nature, and yet we individually have the choice to not be. This choice has nothing inherently to do with any particular sex, race, skin color, or nationality. Humans of all stripes can make (and do make) both good and bad, True and False choices. We are all sinful. As such we can all recognize our individual flaws and try to equally apply the practice of not treating our fellow humans with dishonesty, wrath, envy, or lust. We can disagree with them, and yet forgive them when they behave badly to us. These are taller orders I'm sure than the orders that the opposing crowd marches to... it is always easier to take a group of people you don't like and hate them because their different ideology excuses your behavior... but it is not nobler.
When The Consensus Is Wrong...
**Migrated from a post in 2016
**In a time when one political faction in America routinely makes accusations that the current administration and anyone who chooses not to rabidly hate it is fascist, while using every tactic in the Nazi Brownshirt arsenal... this is rather timely.
- - -
There
are times that a wave of consensus demands that you comply with the
latest invented ideology of the day... and in those times it is
necessary to refuse to comply.
Truth
is not a thing defined by particular men in particular times and
places... Truth is that which does not change with time, and defined by
something higher than mortal men. Stand with that.
The Fictions Never End for Relativism: Critical Race Theory
It is both funny and tiresome when some shiny bit of jargon or a
sharp name is whipped out in a discussion like a zip-gun in a knife
fight. "You don't believe in social justice issues, huh? You must not
know about CRT (Critical Race Theory)!"
...yeahhhno...
I am indeed woke enough to understand it, and am familiar with it's roots all the way back to the hoary old fabricators like W.E.B. DuBois before it got modern chrome. I also am woke enough to understand that just because you put chrome on a cheap shank, it is still garbage.
CRT and other social justice philosophy of it's ilk are still, at the end of the day, just another form of postmodern relativism and Marxist hallucination alloyed into a cheap substitute for rational thought. The CRT problem is that: "structures, policies, practices, and norms resulting in differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race . . . It is structural, having been absorbed into our institutions of custom, practice and law, so there need not be an identifiable offender." This is a nonsensical idea, divorced from facts or evidence, leaving all the oppressive power in whomever can squeal victim loudest, with whatever fabricated narrative they choose.
What flavor of "'splaining" by the advocate is it, when I already know about the theory and still disagree with it?
...yeahhhno...
I am indeed woke enough to understand it, and am familiar with it's roots all the way back to the hoary old fabricators like W.E.B. DuBois before it got modern chrome. I also am woke enough to understand that just because you put chrome on a cheap shank, it is still garbage.
CRT and other social justice philosophy of it's ilk are still, at the end of the day, just another form of postmodern relativism and Marxist hallucination alloyed into a cheap substitute for rational thought. The CRT problem is that: "structures, policies, practices, and norms resulting in differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race . . . It is structural, having been absorbed into our institutions of custom, practice and law, so there need not be an identifiable offender." This is a nonsensical idea, divorced from facts or evidence, leaving all the oppressive power in whomever can squeal victim loudest, with whatever fabricated narrative they choose.
What flavor of "'splaining" by the advocate is it, when I already know about the theory and still disagree with it?
Friday, March 23, 2018
If You Are Intersectional, You Need Not Defend Your Ideas
HERE is an article that was linked from one of the G+ pages that I follow.
Predictably, most of the comments were leftist in character. Opposing views were absent.
This article is very typical of the sort of thinking that I find coming from the left in general and intersectional thinkers in particular. It is, in my opinion, a typically poorly thought out line of reasoning. I will accept that it is an opinion piece, and as such not really meant to engage any but the echo chamber, but that is exactly the problem. The author, Jennifer Wright levels charges at Steven Crowder, but entirely fails to address anything that he argues. She justifies this by noting that he does not really want his mind changed, but seems to be oblivious to her own apparent disinterest in having her mind changed. So we have a zero sum game in which it seems that she suggests that dialogue is pointless and nihilistically concedes the day to intellectual and ultimately political tribalism.
This is my take on her article.
* * *
It is always easier to hate people you cannot and will not understand, and to invent caricatures of them that say what you want them to say than it is to apply the mind to the hard task of thinking and understanding.
Do we owe anyone else the effort to think and understand them? Maybe not. But in a free republic, comfortable echo chambers lead to tribal mobs, and mobs are easy pickings for tyrants. Of course maybe, just maybe, the answer is yes if we value human persons over ideologies, for it is ideologies that destroy humanity when we no longer accept the humanity of those with whom we disagree.
So here are some thoughts for the thoughtful... and a waste of time for the smugly self-righteous...
- - -
It has taken me 31 years of life as a woman on this planet, but I’ve reached a point where I no longer feel I owe badly-intentioned men a debate.
Ms. Wright is a citizen in a republic, as is Steven Crowder whom she is arguing against. Republics, in order to survive, demand the inconvenient necessity of civil debate about ideas, some of which we are not comfortable. Failure to engage is to cede responsibility to others who do, and to cede a legitimate right to demand our view be endorsed when we did not defend it. That is how repubics work. Ms. Wright is welcome to participate, or to be quiet, or to go become a citizen of a non-republic where her right to shape policy with ideas she supports do not exist. As a matter of fact, as a journalist in a republic with freedom of speech and press, she IS engaging. So is Mr. Crowder.
The difference seems to be that he is not afraid to have his case challenged directly because he is confident in his logic and his facts (whether they stand or not is to be proven in an arena of ideas). Ms. Wright does not seem to be willing to engage directly, and offers as reasoning many assertions with less than clear reasoning or fact upon which to base her case. She further attacks Mr. Crowder's character, but offers no evidence to support the legitimacy of her attack beyond that "she saw pictures". That is bald-faced prejudice: irrational and negative judgement against another. Because she demonstrates a clear support for the intersectional worldview throughout her article, and because prejudice is one of the evils that intersectionalism claims to oppose, she says more about herself and her own intentions in her attack than she does about Mr. Crowder.
In a republic, are we to take seriously the notion that just because one is beyond a certain age or of a particular sex, one no longer has a responsibility to challenge and be challenged in their ideas? Is not one of the founding principles of a republic that there must not be classes of people who were not answerable to the rest? If we accept that some protected classes are enshrined with the privilege not to be challenged, then we trade a republic of imperfect people who are given the power to check and balance each other for some kind of authoritarian tyrrany. Surely this is not what Ms. Wright wants?
- - -
...I would patiently sit with a man like that, explaining the ways we have, for instance, never had a female president or vice president, and also why American women keep dying in childbirth...
Ms. Wright offers this as evidence for why Mr. Crowder is wrong in his proposition that male privilege is a myth. If this is the sort of evidence she is accustomed to giving, she should re-examine her facts and logic. The fact that presidents and vice presidents in the current era have not been women is not because women don't have the opportunity. The ones who have, have been found wanting as individuals with policy positions that the electorate did not like. Mere assertions are not proof, though the fact that millions of voting women voted for men is strong evidence to the contrary. Is Ms. Wright going to seriously disqualify millions of women merely becasue they disagree with her? That is not very intersectional.
And her suggestion that American women still sometimes die in childbirth is evidence of male privilege is simply specious. Women don't suffer erectile disfunction or prostate problems, nor do they on average, die as early; does that make them privileged? Men and women are different, and have different biological problems. Does Ms. Wright have good or bad intentions in trying to shoehorn those particular facts into her argument? That these are argument for something is beyond question; they just don't deal with the question she is claiming to answer.
- - -
And to every younger version of me out there, I thought: run.
Like, literally, go for a run. A run will raise your heart rate and be healthy for you. Or eat a bag of potato chips. They’re delicious. Or read any book in the world. Twilight, Being and Nothingness, whatever, any book.
Anything would be more productive than trying to engage a man who is cheerfully demanding that you “change his mind” in debate.
Does Ms. Wright expect to be taken seriously when she advocates for avoiding challenging ideas or being challenged? That is intellectually lazy. And if her cause is a moral imperative, then it is morally lazy as well, for it abets an ongoing problem. Furthermore, does she actually think reading any book would be more productive? Would she advocate for reading the misogynistic pornographic Fifty Shades of Grey as better than addressing Mr. Crowder in a discussion of facts? Perhaps she thinks that reading the Qaran which states that the word of two women must be sought to equal one statement by a man, would be more productive than presenting the strength of her argument in public before others that might be swayed by Crowder?
- - -
Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade their responsibility for their own actions.
What responsibility is Ms. Wright evading by not confronting what she perceives to be an injustice? If she sees something wrong and says nothing, then is she not complicit in allowing it by intersectional logic?
- - -
But I have never seen it result in anything but a miserable game of Calvinball wherein the rules are constantly changed by the person who thinks it would be fun to make you try to change their mind.
Rules constantly changing is something that discourse based on facts tends to mitigate. That is the sort of discourse Ms. Wright is evading in favor of complaining by whatever standards she finds convenient.
- - -
I have rarely seen anyone’s mind be changed by even the most well-intentioned arguments. Because, let me assure you, men who sit down and issue these glib challenges in the name of debate do not actually want their minds changed. They want to argue with someone, because they think that arguing is fun.
To them, a debate about whether women can have abortions or whether guns should be allowed to be owned by domestic abusers is no more high stakes for them than a debate about whether Batman is better than Superman, or what vegetables would be best to grow on Mars (potatoes, obviously).
This statement is incredibly dishonest. Steven Crowder is a commedian as well as an internet podcaster. As such, much like Bill Mahr, Noah Trevor, or Jamie Oliver, he is indeed sometimes glib, sometimes prickly, and sometimes provocative in what he presents. I cannot defend everything he does. However, Ms. Wright's statement makes me highly suspicious as to whether she actually has seen more than a picture of Crowder in any of his appearances to "change my mind".
In those cases, as well as on his podcast when he does interviews with people that diagree with him, he is remarkably civil, and on college campuses, often far more civil than his opponents who routinely insult him, curse at him, and try to shout him down. Furthermore, he sometimes is more thourogh with his facts than they are. This is not surprising, since intersectional theory denies the scientific method and common logic as tools of the patriarchy which is frankly so unhinged as to be laughable. Whether Ms. Wright goes that far or not, I don't know, but she most definitely does not characterize Crowder in his appearances.
Nor does she accurately characterize the stakes that he seeks to defend. While his methods may be more or less provocative, it is simply spurious to suggest that he does not take ideas seriously. He understands very well that ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Surely Ms. Wright would agree? The question then is why Ms. Wright is so averse to either challenging Crowder's ideas or being challenged? If she thinks she is right and has a rational case, she should present it in good faith. Just like Crowder does.
By the way, she seems woefully clueless as to Crowder's position about abortion or the conditions under which one should own a gun. She notes the importance of people getting information; perhaps this applies to her as well?
- - -
While they can play devil’s advocate and toss around hypotheticals that are utterly disconnected from their reality and then opt out at the end, for women these discussions require revelation and vulnerability; they are a sharing of our actual lived experience.
If Ms. Wright believes that Crowder is utterly disconnected from reality, she is inexcusably ignorant. Crowder, while sometimes uses hyperbole for effect, he does not confuse this for reality. He does in fact resort to objective facts and deductive and inductive reasoning to support his arguments. Ms. Wright, at best, has so far painted little more than a caricature that does not reflect reality. Is she exempt from the rules she demands of others?
- - -
You know what people who are generally interested in having their minds changed do? They pick up a book. They go to the library and they read a book on the topic written by an expert who has opposing views. They read a newspaper article.
Ms. Wright, following the caricature that she has invented, either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that Mr. Crowder is actually well informed on the issues that he raises, and in some cases, knows more than the people who oppose him on college campuses. We might accuse him of punching below his weight class by talking to college students, though I would suggest that it is actually more accurate that he is not opposing the students so much as he is opposing the leftist professors that are indoctrinating the students, and is thus in good faith attempting to challenge the students thinking by presenting an alternative viewpiont. This is very consistent with what a classic liberal education has done in the west. Does Ms. Wright think that an education exposing students to a broad array of ideas and allowing them to think for themselves is a good idea? Or does she think that it is preferable to leave students to an increasingly constricted, closed minded, and highly politically partisan acadamy? Crowder believes that a free people ought to grapple with difficult ideas because he does care about the consequences of ideas, and happens to believe that the leftist political philosophy of intersectionalism is logically compromised. He actually seems to have a more sober view of the importance of the ideas than Ms. Wright, even if his method is one she does not like.
- - -
Or post pictures declaring “I’ve never met a 'peaceful' feminist who wasn’t a raging man hating demon. Prove me wrong?”
I admit, as a raging man-hating demon, I cannot. Though if I were to try, I would employ this approach.
The superficial resemblance to Crowder is once again to conflate him with the caricature that she has invented. Crowder has not done this in his campus appearances. He has been far more civil.
- - -
But it is almost impossible to argue against someone who admits no validity whatsoever to your fundamental truths. And it can be detrimental.
Does Ms. Wright count herself within the scope of this charge?
- - -
The Guardian describes an instance where, "in 1994 when Irving gatecrashes one of her university lectures, [he] waves $1,000 in the air and says he’ll give it to anyone who can produce written evidence that Hitler ordered the final solution. He then calls her a coward for refusing to debate."
Again, caricturizing Mr. Crowder. She conflates him with a Holocaust denier to bolster her ongoing character attacks on him. Crowder, for the record, is not a Holocaust denier as he actually does read, and does lean on facts available when preparing for a debate. Ms. Wright has still failed to marshal any relevant facts to address the argument Crowder is making, and instead attacks the straw man Crowder that she has constructed.
- - -
If you engage people who genuinely believe that feminists are demons in debate, then you’re admitting that there are just two different, equally valid opinions on that topic. The demon side and the not demon side.
There aren’t.
Again, Ms. Wright with the straw man. Did she actually bother to research and view Crowder's appearance to debate the issue that she is criticising? She is attacking him for something that someone else did. Does she not understand the logical problem or does she just not care? She began with a critique of Crowder that became a continuous attack and finally morphed into a generalized attack. And still, not a single argument that challenges the simple proposition that he made.
- - -
That’s especially important to remember in a “post-truth” age when asking anyone to read a book, or anything longer than a tweet, is seen as a sign that you’re some sort of high-minded, out of touch elite.
I wonder what Ms. Wright thinks "truth" actually means? Does she believe that it is a thing that is objective to all human beings across all times and places? Or does she have a post-modern view of truth in which truth is relative and subjective? She certainly seems to argue consistently with the second view, which is also provides the philosophic framework for intersectional theory which is riddled through and through with relativism's cancer. I do know that Mr. Crowder believes that truth is transcendent and objective whether he likes it or not. It is upon this foundation that he builds his arguments and justifies his genuine concern that ideas matter because they build up or tear down human societies and human persons when you act upon them. Does Ms. Wright think the same?
- - -
The people who are responsible for changing these men’s minds on an issue are not women who will walk them through issues in gentle baby steps.
Would she find it patronizing and dare I say, sexist, if one were to suggest that it might take baby steps to explain to her the problems that she seems to miss in her article? It seems that femsplaining is perfectly OK, where "mansplaining" is not.
- - -
It might, again, take actually reading a few books on the topic they claim to be interested in.
It seems fairly obvious, that Ms. Wright is as closed minded as she accuses Steven Crowder of being.
Why bother reading what the other side has to say if it challenges your view? Much easier to run away, eat some potato chips, and read only books that tell you what you already believe...
Predictably, most of the comments were leftist in character. Opposing views were absent.
This article is very typical of the sort of thinking that I find coming from the left in general and intersectional thinkers in particular. It is, in my opinion, a typically poorly thought out line of reasoning. I will accept that it is an opinion piece, and as such not really meant to engage any but the echo chamber, but that is exactly the problem. The author, Jennifer Wright levels charges at Steven Crowder, but entirely fails to address anything that he argues. She justifies this by noting that he does not really want his mind changed, but seems to be oblivious to her own apparent disinterest in having her mind changed. So we have a zero sum game in which it seems that she suggests that dialogue is pointless and nihilistically concedes the day to intellectual and ultimately political tribalism.
This is my take on her article.
* * *
It is always easier to hate people you cannot and will not understand, and to invent caricatures of them that say what you want them to say than it is to apply the mind to the hard task of thinking and understanding.
Do we owe anyone else the effort to think and understand them? Maybe not. But in a free republic, comfortable echo chambers lead to tribal mobs, and mobs are easy pickings for tyrants. Of course maybe, just maybe, the answer is yes if we value human persons over ideologies, for it is ideologies that destroy humanity when we no longer accept the humanity of those with whom we disagree.
So here are some thoughts for the thoughtful... and a waste of time for the smugly self-righteous...
- - -
It has taken me 31 years of life as a woman on this planet, but I’ve reached a point where I no longer feel I owe badly-intentioned men a debate.
Ms. Wright is a citizen in a republic, as is Steven Crowder whom she is arguing against. Republics, in order to survive, demand the inconvenient necessity of civil debate about ideas, some of which we are not comfortable. Failure to engage is to cede responsibility to others who do, and to cede a legitimate right to demand our view be endorsed when we did not defend it. That is how repubics work. Ms. Wright is welcome to participate, or to be quiet, or to go become a citizen of a non-republic where her right to shape policy with ideas she supports do not exist. As a matter of fact, as a journalist in a republic with freedom of speech and press, she IS engaging. So is Mr. Crowder.
The difference seems to be that he is not afraid to have his case challenged directly because he is confident in his logic and his facts (whether they stand or not is to be proven in an arena of ideas). Ms. Wright does not seem to be willing to engage directly, and offers as reasoning many assertions with less than clear reasoning or fact upon which to base her case. She further attacks Mr. Crowder's character, but offers no evidence to support the legitimacy of her attack beyond that "she saw pictures". That is bald-faced prejudice: irrational and negative judgement against another. Because she demonstrates a clear support for the intersectional worldview throughout her article, and because prejudice is one of the evils that intersectionalism claims to oppose, she says more about herself and her own intentions in her attack than she does about Mr. Crowder.
In a republic, are we to take seriously the notion that just because one is beyond a certain age or of a particular sex, one no longer has a responsibility to challenge and be challenged in their ideas? Is not one of the founding principles of a republic that there must not be classes of people who were not answerable to the rest? If we accept that some protected classes are enshrined with the privilege not to be challenged, then we trade a republic of imperfect people who are given the power to check and balance each other for some kind of authoritarian tyrrany. Surely this is not what Ms. Wright wants?
- - -
...I would patiently sit with a man like that, explaining the ways we have, for instance, never had a female president or vice president, and also why American women keep dying in childbirth...
Ms. Wright offers this as evidence for why Mr. Crowder is wrong in his proposition that male privilege is a myth. If this is the sort of evidence she is accustomed to giving, she should re-examine her facts and logic. The fact that presidents and vice presidents in the current era have not been women is not because women don't have the opportunity. The ones who have, have been found wanting as individuals with policy positions that the electorate did not like. Mere assertions are not proof, though the fact that millions of voting women voted for men is strong evidence to the contrary. Is Ms. Wright going to seriously disqualify millions of women merely becasue they disagree with her? That is not very intersectional.
And her suggestion that American women still sometimes die in childbirth is evidence of male privilege is simply specious. Women don't suffer erectile disfunction or prostate problems, nor do they on average, die as early; does that make them privileged? Men and women are different, and have different biological problems. Does Ms. Wright have good or bad intentions in trying to shoehorn those particular facts into her argument? That these are argument for something is beyond question; they just don't deal with the question she is claiming to answer.
- - -
And to every younger version of me out there, I thought: run.
Like, literally, go for a run. A run will raise your heart rate and be healthy for you. Or eat a bag of potato chips. They’re delicious. Or read any book in the world. Twilight, Being and Nothingness, whatever, any book.
Anything would be more productive than trying to engage a man who is cheerfully demanding that you “change his mind” in debate.
Does Ms. Wright expect to be taken seriously when she advocates for avoiding challenging ideas or being challenged? That is intellectually lazy. And if her cause is a moral imperative, then it is morally lazy as well, for it abets an ongoing problem. Furthermore, does she actually think reading any book would be more productive? Would she advocate for reading the misogynistic pornographic Fifty Shades of Grey as better than addressing Mr. Crowder in a discussion of facts? Perhaps she thinks that reading the Qaran which states that the word of two women must be sought to equal one statement by a man, would be more productive than presenting the strength of her argument in public before others that might be swayed by Crowder?
- - -
Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade their responsibility for their own actions.
What responsibility is Ms. Wright evading by not confronting what she perceives to be an injustice? If she sees something wrong and says nothing, then is she not complicit in allowing it by intersectional logic?
- - -
But I have never seen it result in anything but a miserable game of Calvinball wherein the rules are constantly changed by the person who thinks it would be fun to make you try to change their mind.
Rules constantly changing is something that discourse based on facts tends to mitigate. That is the sort of discourse Ms. Wright is evading in favor of complaining by whatever standards she finds convenient.
- - -
I have rarely seen anyone’s mind be changed by even the most well-intentioned arguments. Because, let me assure you, men who sit down and issue these glib challenges in the name of debate do not actually want their minds changed. They want to argue with someone, because they think that arguing is fun.
To them, a debate about whether women can have abortions or whether guns should be allowed to be owned by domestic abusers is no more high stakes for them than a debate about whether Batman is better than Superman, or what vegetables would be best to grow on Mars (potatoes, obviously).
This statement is incredibly dishonest. Steven Crowder is a commedian as well as an internet podcaster. As such, much like Bill Mahr, Noah Trevor, or Jamie Oliver, he is indeed sometimes glib, sometimes prickly, and sometimes provocative in what he presents. I cannot defend everything he does. However, Ms. Wright's statement makes me highly suspicious as to whether she actually has seen more than a picture of Crowder in any of his appearances to "change my mind".
In those cases, as well as on his podcast when he does interviews with people that diagree with him, he is remarkably civil, and on college campuses, often far more civil than his opponents who routinely insult him, curse at him, and try to shout him down. Furthermore, he sometimes is more thourogh with his facts than they are. This is not surprising, since intersectional theory denies the scientific method and common logic as tools of the patriarchy which is frankly so unhinged as to be laughable. Whether Ms. Wright goes that far or not, I don't know, but she most definitely does not characterize Crowder in his appearances.
Nor does she accurately characterize the stakes that he seeks to defend. While his methods may be more or less provocative, it is simply spurious to suggest that he does not take ideas seriously. He understands very well that ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Surely Ms. Wright would agree? The question then is why Ms. Wright is so averse to either challenging Crowder's ideas or being challenged? If she thinks she is right and has a rational case, she should present it in good faith. Just like Crowder does.
By the way, she seems woefully clueless as to Crowder's position about abortion or the conditions under which one should own a gun. She notes the importance of people getting information; perhaps this applies to her as well?
- - -
While they can play devil’s advocate and toss around hypotheticals that are utterly disconnected from their reality and then opt out at the end, for women these discussions require revelation and vulnerability; they are a sharing of our actual lived experience.
If Ms. Wright believes that Crowder is utterly disconnected from reality, she is inexcusably ignorant. Crowder, while sometimes uses hyperbole for effect, he does not confuse this for reality. He does in fact resort to objective facts and deductive and inductive reasoning to support his arguments. Ms. Wright, at best, has so far painted little more than a caricature that does not reflect reality. Is she exempt from the rules she demands of others?
- - -
You know what people who are generally interested in having their minds changed do? They pick up a book. They go to the library and they read a book on the topic written by an expert who has opposing views. They read a newspaper article.
Ms. Wright, following the caricature that she has invented, either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that Mr. Crowder is actually well informed on the issues that he raises, and in some cases, knows more than the people who oppose him on college campuses. We might accuse him of punching below his weight class by talking to college students, though I would suggest that it is actually more accurate that he is not opposing the students so much as he is opposing the leftist professors that are indoctrinating the students, and is thus in good faith attempting to challenge the students thinking by presenting an alternative viewpiont. This is very consistent with what a classic liberal education has done in the west. Does Ms. Wright think that an education exposing students to a broad array of ideas and allowing them to think for themselves is a good idea? Or does she think that it is preferable to leave students to an increasingly constricted, closed minded, and highly politically partisan acadamy? Crowder believes that a free people ought to grapple with difficult ideas because he does care about the consequences of ideas, and happens to believe that the leftist political philosophy of intersectionalism is logically compromised. He actually seems to have a more sober view of the importance of the ideas than Ms. Wright, even if his method is one she does not like.
- - -
Or post pictures declaring “I’ve never met a 'peaceful' feminist who wasn’t a raging man hating demon. Prove me wrong?”
I admit, as a raging man-hating demon, I cannot. Though if I were to try, I would employ this approach.
The superficial resemblance to Crowder is once again to conflate him with the caricature that she has invented. Crowder has not done this in his campus appearances. He has been far more civil.
- - -
But it is almost impossible to argue against someone who admits no validity whatsoever to your fundamental truths. And it can be detrimental.
Does Ms. Wright count herself within the scope of this charge?
- - -
The Guardian describes an instance where, "in 1994 when Irving gatecrashes one of her university lectures, [he] waves $1,000 in the air and says he’ll give it to anyone who can produce written evidence that Hitler ordered the final solution. He then calls her a coward for refusing to debate."
Again, caricturizing Mr. Crowder. She conflates him with a Holocaust denier to bolster her ongoing character attacks on him. Crowder, for the record, is not a Holocaust denier as he actually does read, and does lean on facts available when preparing for a debate. Ms. Wright has still failed to marshal any relevant facts to address the argument Crowder is making, and instead attacks the straw man Crowder that she has constructed.
- - -
If you engage people who genuinely believe that feminists are demons in debate, then you’re admitting that there are just two different, equally valid opinions on that topic. The demon side and the not demon side.
There aren’t.
Again, Ms. Wright with the straw man. Did she actually bother to research and view Crowder's appearance to debate the issue that she is criticising? She is attacking him for something that someone else did. Does she not understand the logical problem or does she just not care? She began with a critique of Crowder that became a continuous attack and finally morphed into a generalized attack. And still, not a single argument that challenges the simple proposition that he made.
- - -
That’s especially important to remember in a “post-truth” age when asking anyone to read a book, or anything longer than a tweet, is seen as a sign that you’re some sort of high-minded, out of touch elite.
I wonder what Ms. Wright thinks "truth" actually means? Does she believe that it is a thing that is objective to all human beings across all times and places? Or does she have a post-modern view of truth in which truth is relative and subjective? She certainly seems to argue consistently with the second view, which is also provides the philosophic framework for intersectional theory which is riddled through and through with relativism's cancer. I do know that Mr. Crowder believes that truth is transcendent and objective whether he likes it or not. It is upon this foundation that he builds his arguments and justifies his genuine concern that ideas matter because they build up or tear down human societies and human persons when you act upon them. Does Ms. Wright think the same?
- - -
The people who are responsible for changing these men’s minds on an issue are not women who will walk them through issues in gentle baby steps.
Would she find it patronizing and dare I say, sexist, if one were to suggest that it might take baby steps to explain to her the problems that she seems to miss in her article? It seems that femsplaining is perfectly OK, where "mansplaining" is not.
- - -
It might, again, take actually reading a few books on the topic they claim to be interested in.
It seems fairly obvious, that Ms. Wright is as closed minded as she accuses Steven Crowder of being.
Why bother reading what the other side has to say if it challenges your view? Much easier to run away, eat some potato chips, and read only books that tell you what you already believe...
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Feeding Children To Crocodiles
This is unhinged.
In what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning in a free, democratic country, we have an example of the sort of indoctrination that intersectional courses teach. Note that the only allowable sources are the approved propaganda from other intersectional sociologic sources. This is the most irresponsible, un-academic, and intellectually oppressive nonsense. It is a divide and conquer tactic that seeks to divest the student from any alternative view or support in order to overwhelm them with the acceptable brainwashing, before devouring their minds in the intersectional machine.
The patriarchy is not the problem... an academy divorced from truth and facts with an ultimately power hungry political agenda is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)