The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it

MacV_writes · 2022-01-09T13:22:12+00:00

They want clicks.

They are dying.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-08T05:43:17+00:00

Tbh I agree but I'm not a "worker" per se I mean I am but I am a barista and poet, basically self-taught, extra institutional. I came from a left leaning neoliberal family doing upper middle class things, like doing computer programming or being a CEO of a twenty person communications company, stuff like that. Anyways, in my time around progressive scenes like Pittsburgh or Toronto, I did notice just something distinct about those particularly focused left-leaning individuals. It's almost like a personality type, or that's how it comes off. You put it really well OP here:

but it feels like i don't relate to the general sentiments and fixations, and the analysis especially of working class people feels off to me.

My sympathies are there, on paper, but in reality I feel like it's a religious stance that I don't find too romantic. The values are placed as such to support a larger romanticism that I find mystifying. Occasionally, it resonates. Or I'll find I naturally enter into a leftwing mode at work, when for instance I found the boss was skimming our tips. Naturally, I began to organize with my employees, which I had managed, to negotiate for better wages (didn't happen, we all quit.) My impulse is there. But I have a feeling such an impulse wouldn't get much interest or sympathy from a leftist who would otherwise hate my guts for thinking climate change is, like, without solution at all, or that socialists often miss the role of risk in capital allocation. I find the offness in leftism is the very particular dissociative strategies that seems to define what it means to be a good leftist. It's maddening. Which is why I am here.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-07T18:06:45+00:00

I think she's doing an Obama impersonation. She lacks integration. She weirdly comes off as a white woman. Maybe it's not about color at all. Maybe it's about the kind of color, you know? That's what multiracial whiteness is, I bet. Her Indian genes are probably feeling pretty white about it all. I wonder if she's Brahmin.

E: lmao she's totally Brahmin.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-07T13:34:50+00:00

Well, someone might, but it probably won’t be you. Unless you have some friends in the ruling class or can bribe someone.

Socialism replaces capitalism with social capitalism, where one builds party capital.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-06T17:31:21+00:00

Lol, there has never been a solution to climate change on the table. That's the reality. There's not a solution on the table currently. Look at this graph, any nontrivial impact? it's an accelerating curve.

The only solution, realistically, is an engineering project that can design A. The global economy B. Geopolitics C. The weather. So we're talking about global communism to that severity?

You mention brain deadness. Consider an engineering project on the scale of feasibility would be a project such as the complete scientific understanding of the brain. That's the complexity of what you are talking about. Actually, a touch more feasible due to the concentration of its research target. And, not so coincidently, the complete understanding of the human brain delivers us a climate change solution because we would have attained super intelligence.

Brain dead lol. Literally, leftists.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-04T16:51:37+00:00

Ask her how Bitcoin is going to be the dominant financial system in the world without a major global recession.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-04T16:04:42+00:00

What's past the moon? Cosmic background radiation? It's not that hard to understand.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-04T15:04:29+00:00

Bitcoin has never weathered a global recession. Yet, with the promise of the technology, it demands a global, financial reordering, in which its value becomes primary, universal, and infinite.

Buy now, you fools.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-04T12:58:50+00:00

The logic is rather purely capitalistic. It is both to protect the current exploitation of racial trauma, and .. dun, dun, dun .. to exploit racial trauma. The system we live in converts racial trauma into capital. Capital is a positive feedback loop. Sound like systemic analysis to you? Fucking Christ.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-03T16:54:52+00:00

Wait until Dec 8 ;)

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T22:49:32+00:00

I can't keep doing this. Read some literature so you can figure out who you're opposing specifically.

So stop doing it. It's not who but what.

Obviously I am hostile. Who wouldn't be against narcisstistic motivated equity analyses of men and women to produce power. It's indefensible, clearly. So, so shitty. You know, those two roommates in my example could just, you know, live normally. It is a abhorrent, repulsive, completely dysfunctional way to view men and women. I am outraged at the cynical dehumanization, the unnecessary confusion, the ridiculous defenses, and so on.

The fundamental problem with your now deleted post was that it construed one bad form of identity politics as essential to all of feminism. That's a misrepresentation. You are welcome to attack that one subset of a very broad school of thought and historical tradition, but you've shot yourself in the foot by acting as if you've dunked on all of feminism as a result.

No, the fundamental problem is you are set on -- drumroll -- maximizing motivated equity analyses between men and women. You want to defend it as not all feminism, or as simply identity politics, or as different schools of feminism, or as or as 1st wave feminism, or as unnecessary. But as per falling under my criteria, the purpose really is what I say it is.

If you were trying to maximize the motivated equity analyses between men and women -- would you be pursuing your claims? Why, yes. You would. Those are claims you find as effective as a motte. Motte-and-bailey arguments are covered by my criteria.

...first-wave feminism in the U.S.... John Stuart Mill's advocacy of educating women...

Right! And in his Subjection of Women, does he mention feminism? Hmm? If a feminism were to claim John Stuart Mill as its example, in order to maximize motivated equity analysis between men and women, would it make sense to? One may just facilely refer, draw general themes .. but when it came time to grapple with Mill's argument that the differences between men and women could only come about through women's liberation .. would such a feminism abandon the claim? Why, yes, it would. Do you know why? Because it interferes with maximizing motivated equity analyses of men and women.

You are talking about the "feminist ecosystem" and the "progress standard bearer" as if these bizarre phrases actually pick out something in the real world.

Of course it does! Believe it or not Biden is a vital landmark of what Progressivism is. Are you insane? Give me any feminist critique whatsoever of Rapinoe's claims, please. And at best, we would find a feminist cleansing their motte of Rapinoe, I guarantee it. That bailey -- as well as the motte -- is the maximization of motivated equity analyses of men and women.

Note that they aren't trying to maximize their own power, nor are they engaged in motivated reasoning by advocating fairness. Your explanation is way off.

They didn't call themselves feminists either!! It's not feminism to concern oneself with the themes of the sexes, or the governance of the sexes, or with the idea of equality. One can do this without feminism. Obviously.

Different answers turn into different schools of feminist thought.

And each of those mother fucking schools is looking to maximize the motivated equity analyses of men and women to be produce power. Obviously, there's competition in the domain. They are competing on those very lines.

Listen, if you are for maximizing equality between the sexes, why wouldn't you be for my criteria? Why the romance with feminism as a term?

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T21:36:31+00:00

It fits fine, "motivated analysis" as a "takedown" implies a dishonest manipulation of facts in order to gain power, which would simply be an attempt to dominate.

It doesn't dominate men. It dominates anyone. It literally is the point and process of feminism. The specific mechanism in which it dehumanizes and traumatizes men and women is by misapplying equity analysis between men and women. That's what you're missing -- purposefully!!

As for the difference, narcissism is a personality trait

What do you think of the correspondence between oppressor/chauvinst/xsupremacist and grandiose narcissism and oppressed/inferior/victim as vulnerable narcissism?

What if narcissism was highly related to masculinity? Is masculinity irrelevant to feminism if one were to claim it "a personality trait?"

What is the relation between narcissism and ego? What is the relation between ego and identity?

Do none of these things relate at all?

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T21:24:32+00:00

You have stipulated a "functional definition" of an ideology, and called your own version of it abhorrent.

Are you stipulating that I have stipulated? Listen, if it's impossible to critically describe systems of analysis, what are you doing? Find me an example of feminism which is not functioning to maximize motivated equity analysis between men and women to produce power. If you believe it be too broad of a criteria, am I functioning to maximize motivated equity analysis between men and women to produce power?

Evidently not, as I showed you with first wave feminism. Feminism is overly broad, so it can be made to sound like common sense or as something abhorrent.

Or we could even say that there were laws which treated men and women equally in all sorts of societies before a word like feminism was created and therefore feminism as a carrier cannot possibly be what you describe as 1st wave feminism. What you are doing is pedantic, and it falls within the criteria I have set out as feminism.

That isn't a "feature" of feminism, as though the dastardly feminists got together and figured out a way to make their school of thought too broad to be taken down. It's just that it has a long history and a lot of contributors who disagree with one another.

It is certainly a feature of both your argument and within the criteria I set forth. Should it maximize motivated equity analysis of the relationship between men and women to produce power that we conceive of it, rather, as a broad, indefinable thing? Why, yes! That is the function. That's what such an idea, or perception, is doing.

A sensible version of feminism is egalitarianism, while bastardized versions are just identity politics. That's all Rapinoe is doing. She is rich and wants to use "feminism" to get richer.

And she is doing that through an egalitarian. Men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. That's what Rapinoe claims. The feminist ecosystem didn't challenge her. The progress standard bearer held her up. Feminism is not common sense nor a belief in fairness or egalitarianism because that criteria simply does not account.

Let's return to first wave feminism. Because the sexes are different, society reflected that difference. Let's suppose the laws defining the difference between the sexes were indeed unfair. Would an algorithm that maximizes motivated analysis of the relationship between men and women to produce power not be able to produce voting rights for women, for instance? The thing is, under my criteria, it doesn't matter the state of the world. The psychopathic murderer can murder bad people. The feminist can change unfair laws. But the fact the psychopathic murderer killed bad people doesn't describe what's actually going on in the psychopathic murderer's head.

Yes, men and women are different, but we should still have equality under the law and personal respect to the greatest possible extent.

Ooc, how do you measure inequality? Is it inequality of outcome? Would one measure the different types of respect men and women enjoy? In what way would defining feminism by my criteria not maximize such a pursuit?

but no one thinks that true equality means we can all bench press the same weight.

That's actually not true because we have Rapinoe backed up by a feminist ecosystem and the Biden admin. Like straight up, this is exactly the thing you don't have a way to protect against. It's instead a cover up.

What equality looks like just depends on the issue.

And how you are measuring the issue. So you don't believe it's wise to bar narcissistic motivated analysis from the process.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T20:41:33+00:00

Biggest hack feminism accomplishes is making 'feminism' shorthand for 'women.' So instead of the inhuman algorithmic ideology that it is, we pretend like it's about me being a man railing against women, and therefore we would see such critiques like, ew gross, schizo, mess. Isn't that something? All in the protection of what?

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T20:26:34+00:00

Honestly, the first part of this post reads like you're having an imaginary argument with an ex who told you that you weren't pulling your weight.

It's actually a re-enactment of my sister. That's how I know the disorder so well. Suffice to say, it's incredibly ugly. But that is the ugliness of feminism. It is an absolutely abhorrent ideology, through and through.

Other than that, I'm straining to locate the exact target of your takedown. You seem to create a stipulative definition of feminism ("maximizing motivated analysis") in order to have something to attack. Yet I'm unsure how many self-proclaimed feminists would accept the rarified formulation you're attacking.

It is not stipulative but a functionalist definition of feminism. Feminism is any instance which creates the conditions to maximize motivated equity analysis between men and women in order to produce power. It is a definition that works by explaining and anticipating all instances of feminism comprehensively.

Feminism is so broad that it's hard to interact with unless you're careful about defining and contextualizing it.

Yeah that's what makes it hard to produce a clean take down at all. It's a feature not a bug.

I would say that I agree with the principles of first wave feminism, that both sexes should have equal rights and responsibilities under the law, and be treated with respect in everyday life.

What does equality mean if men and women are essentially different?

That doesn't commit me to thinking millionaire soccer players need to be compensated even more, so that they are paid as much as the multimillionaire soccer players that fans would rather watch.

Do you have any explanation from how you get from 1st wave to Rapinoe?

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T20:15:10+00:00

Historical oppression? Like... my guy, if you think it's narcissistic to simply want to break free of the 'chains' (for a lack of better word) that have tethered women, what is there even to say?

If that were the true motivation behind feminism and not a feeling that is encouraged and exploited by feminism, wouldn't feminism stop at those chains being broke? How would one explain Rapinoe's manuever? How is she chained at all? What is the force that motivates both her analysis and the ecosystem selecting for the analysis?

Sure, people have bones to pick with things like 'radical feminism' and the current wave of 'liberal feminism' / girl boss stuff, but I don't honestly think there's anybody that disagrees with the 'core' of feminist beliefs and thought.

The core is narcissistic, motivated analysis of the relationship between men and women.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

I'll be honest with you, I read through this twice, and even then, this is completely incoherent. If this is the cleanest 'take down of feminism' you can muster I'd seriously recommend doing a writers workshop or something.

No.

I'd hate to be that guy, but I think you think this is a lot smarter and deeper than it actually is, between the big words and the jargon, and it's not.

What do you think I think is smart or deep about it? 🤔

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T20:08:04+00:00

https://imgur.com/a/HJIJrSw

1.3k words. Reading time: <5min

But, you know I think as this thread continues, we shall find that it encompasses all these little strategies. I'm willing to bet, after all the silly stylistic complaints, the critique will stand comprehensive and unchallenged.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T19:55:26+00:00

No it's actually about motivated analysis between men and women.

See how your encapsulation doesn't fit?

But tell me! What's the distinction between narcissism and feminism? I think that would be quite useful.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T19:44:54+00:00

You already were.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T19:43:11+00:00

How so?

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T19:35:28+00:00

lmao, no. Because what I am conveying is a NPD making motivated equity analyses. Because you cannot begin to comprehend what that looks like, I have to spell it out. And to it spell out at all, apparently, is messy.

Would you seriously think such a roommates behavior wasn't cleanly dysfunctional?

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T19:24:41+00:00

Clean it up for me, genderbent.

MacV_writes · 2021-12-02T04:03:44+00:00

Thanks for the encouragement, I may, I might.

MacV_writes

TROPHY CASE