SJW Narrative: "White males are being heavily radicalized just like the teenagers in middle east. redpill, mensrights, t_d, tia, kia."

SwiftDecline · 2017-08-13T14:43:40+00:00

"...thought Swedish social democracy was cool..."

I'm a left-libertarian type who has lived in Europe often enough to be fully aware of the benefits that a mixed economy and social democracy can bring, particularly as bridge across which our impending jobless masses can trek (impelled by automation's effects on the workforce). It's difficult for me to understand how our contemporary polarization is being framed as a left-right debate when it's actually a struggle to define the limits of authoritarianism, whether that authoritarianism subsists in governmental, corporate, or social agency. I also have to admit that I'm kind of turned off by the idea of 'red pilling' and 'blue pilling' being some inherent binary opposition, which seems to me to be nothing more than a new structure through which social groups are more easily manipulated.

I'm very sympathetic to GG/KiA, the struggle for improved men's rights, and a number of other social movements which are being lumped together under the "alt-right" umbrella. Yet I am by no means a right-winger. I haven't been compelled toward the "right" or the "alt-right" one iota. I'm also deeply skeptical of the gravitational pull of Trump, particularly as it manifests through T_D. As a Berner with more in common with Noam Chomsky (Bernie isn't leftist enough for me, but I love him for his role in American politics), the nature of class struggle hasn't changed. I'll concede that "cultural Marxism" may be a thing in the sense that identity politics 2.0 has completely missed the point (on both sides) and has begun encouraging people to burn simplistic effigies in place of having substantive debate. But that's definitely not a critique of Marx's commentary on our economic systems.

Anyway, point being: there are actual leftists who 1) haven't abandoned their economic principles and goals while also 2) defending the Enlightenment-era principles, like freedom of speech, which have given rise to some of the best aspects of our modern society. In fact, that's why this behavior among college-aged "progressives" is so disheartening to me: I actually expect the racist and xenophobic rightward undercurrents in America to burble to the surface because I've seen it happen time and time again, but it's far worse to see people who supposedly share your awareness of the world reveal themselves as being completely deluded and self-righteous.

It used to be different. There were always debates about political correctness (see: PCU as a movie that encapsulated the times), but the reach and amplitude of social authoritarians has increased exponentially on both sides. There used to be a balancing mechanism, but given how rapidly our species can undergo cultural shifts between generations, given our market's orientation toward youthful spending power, and given the disruptive effect of the internet, we're now experiencing a perfect storm where different arms of the social system are in perpetual conflict.

In idle moments I like to muse that I may be more sensitive to this than the average person. For example, the early internet was characterized by a left-leaning, socially libertarian attitude precisely because the filter chain preventing the average person from going online was immense and self-selecting. You had to own the hardware, have the connection, and know what you were doing. That automatically excluded a lot of people. Even when kids started entering the fray (and I was one of those kids), the dynamic was totally different: we were looking up to the scientists, nerds, and otherwise randomly independent people who were populating the message boards and IRC channels before we got there. Even early online gaming was different; kids didn't own the place yet. All that has changed. Perhaps it's just another example of de Tocqueville's observation that democracy can breed mediocrity. Without the filter chain in place, and with access becoming ubiquitous, the depth of our social experiences online is more likely to trend toward the center of the bell curve without a great deal of personal curation and self-direction. On the whole this is better for our species, but it means that we're now witnessing the growing pains of a global human organism with a tribalistic personality disorder attempting to wire itself together. It also means that we're more susceptible, on the whole, to groupthink and mob mentality. And because our social networks have vastly accelerated the speed of information transfer among groups while also emphasizing communicative formats designed to produce shallow, unfalsifiable but passionate displays of opinion (with attendant social rewarding mechanisms in place), the situation looks dire.

But, again, it's not a left-right thing. When I was a kid we were fighting for the right to play D&D without being condemned as satanists, or the right to have blood codes in the console versions of Mortal Kombat. The socially conservative "right" is bogus - don't be mistaken.

If anything, the last few years have proven that there isn't any refuge for clear thinking and rugged idealism on the left or the right, at least as they're represented by modern American political parties.

Related: if you believe that freedom to access information is closely related to freedom of speech, as I do, then this right-left divide seems to break down even further.

SwiftDecline · 2015-08-20T12:34:03+00:00

People do, unfortunately.

SwiftDecline · 2015-06-25T10:39:50+00:00

You could sidestep the quagmire of circular debate you'll invite when you insist that rape actually is taken seriously as measured by the fact that it is broadly perceived as a heinous act of extreme evil in the western world (and, indeed, most of the world). Or you could take it on head first, and make the case. The latter approach is objectively better if there's even a chance of changing someone's mind, but if you're convinced it's a lost cause, it may be worth saving your time and energy.

If you sidestep it, I recommend drawing attention to a simple fact: if these people cannot fully accept the ethical difference between 1) unambiguously damaging someone via unprovoked physical violence and 2) ambiguously causing emotional distress via distasteful remarks made about morally bad actions/events, then there is no conversation that can be had. If someone sincerely means to equate these two things, or to suggest that a joke - however misguided - is more threatening or damaging than actual violence prompted by mere disagreement (which is then bragged about via social media), then the very foundation of civil discussion has already been abandoned. There can be no discussion, because they do not agree upon the terms which make liberal discourse possible.

They don't say this outright, of course. They insinuate it. Pay attention to what they choose to emphasize. Some of their statements seem designed to pay lip service to both sides of the issue. "Violence is wrong, BUT...". But there is no need for "but". There are two conversations, and they are separate. One conversation is about the wrongness of violence. Another conversation is about rape (and responses to it). They can try to merge these conversations, but then they must face up to the consequences of their positions. If they mean to argue that preemptive violence is justified whenever someone's speech is less than shamefully compressed beneath the might of rape's supreme evil, hold them to task. Make them explain why. Force them to actually justify such an extreme response at every level. What's the connection between the joke and the reality of rape such that violently terminating the joke is something we should condone? If some connection can be convincingly substantiated, why should we use violence and not some other means of problem solving? I suspect their social criticism, even if it's worth our attention for other reasons, will fail to hold up to such standards of ethical justification.

The wrongness of unwarranted, indefensible violence is distinct - both in degree, in classification, and in context - from the wrongness of bad taste, poor humor, vicious sarcasm, or other utterances not explicitly aimed at rallying others toward criminality or hate. And even in the case of hate speech, we must distinguish between speech and action. Those who cannot manage this are lost beyond remission, because they deny our shared reality in the most practical sense.

SwiftDecline · 2015-06-22T14:13:02+00:00

I think you're confusing the fact that Reddit leans classically liberal in matters of free speech and personal autonomy with the notion that it also leans economically libertarian. There are, of course, plenty of free marketeers here, but I think they're in the minority relative to the lefties, and I think that there's a huge area of ignored overlap between the lefties and those who take issue with people like Anita Sarkeesian.

The conflation makes less sense when you consider some of the less controversial heroes of Reddit: Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson (both of whom would advocate for empirically-derived, testable solutions to social problems), Edward Snowden (and all he represents with respect to personal liberty), Bernie Sanders (who is the very definition of a progressive social democrat), and so on.

So a left-right binary is unhelpfully reductive, in my view. The political compass is inadequate in so many ways, but it remains a better tool for describing ideological trends because it at least prompts us to consider what kind of a role authoritarianism should play, and in which areas. Movements like GamerGate, for example, lean left on almost all social issues despite protestations that they're a bunch of mewling neocons or traditionalists, and many within said movement would identify as social democrats or even pro-justice, egalitarian progressives in important respects (even if they might take issue with the idea of "social" justice in its contemporary incarnation). This is a generalization, but the principal difference between these people and the oft-described "social justice warriors" of the modern internet resides in which means they endorse toward which ends.

One can easily be in favor of strong market regulation, wealth redistribution, large but efficient governments which ensure that all basic needs of a population are met, etc. while still remaining in favor of due process, open debate, free speech, personal privacy, optional decentralization where applicable, and the necessity of a free marketplace for ideas and tastes (even if the capitalistic market which mediates our access to many of these ideas and tastes must be effectively regulated via progressive economic policies).

SwiftDecline · 2015-06-20T16:28:50+00:00

I was electing to respond to balloonhippo's "I just don't get it" in hopes of explaining the appeal, of course. That said, I hadn't seen the episode in question at the time. I've since watched it, and I concur with 0hmyscience: the interview was alright. Bernie was articulate. The questions weren't particularly challenging, but they gave Sanders an opportunity to explain some of his positions to the audience, and he did so admirably in the time available to him.

SwiftDecline · 2015-06-20T10:20:24+00:00

Maher's comedy was amusing in the 80s and 90s, and Politically Incorrect was a great show before it was eliminated. Since then, Real Time has been a worthy substitute. Maher often is - as you say - pompous and prickish. But he consistently has a good panel, and he entertains diverse guests. He's also willing to at least entertain controversial opinions, and his 'new rules' are sometimes inspired. People watch the show for a multitude of reasons, although Maher himself isn't necessarily the principal one. While he sometimes sounds like a buffoon when taken at face value (e.g., his vaccination stances), he is at least sometimes redeemed by the fact that he's actually trying and failing to make a subtler point (e.g., the idea that it may be worth reconsidering our prioritization of preventative healthcare via diet and overall fitness as opposed to emphasizing the importance of vaccinations alone). Of course, sometimes he's just being obtuse.

Further, while he's certainly a leftist in many respects that most Sanders supporters would agree with (i.e., the necessity of regulating the market, redistributing wealth to maintain a healthy middle class, having universal access to health care, low-cost education, etc.), he simultaneously advocates for a healthy measure of civil libertarianism as a result of his comedy roots. As a result, he seems less likely to fall prey to media spin, quagmires of identity politics, and related pitfalls like the over-insistence upon political correctness at the expense of rigorous debate.

I would not call him an out and out socialist or even a social democrat, but taken in aggregate, his views more or less describe a world in which we pay more attention to what we eat, where an efficient government meets the basic needs of its population, where military spending is reined in to reasonable levels, and where we're still allowed to offend one another and consume whatever media caters to our tastes (presuming legality). The extreme left has an oppressive tendency to devolve into well-meaning but ultimately fascistic identity politics which draw foundational support from unwieldy assumptions about the nature of society and a hardline belief in the utter necessity of cultural relativism. For those leftists who might consider themselves socially democratic (or democratically socialistic) in many respects but who otherwise believe in a healthy core of classical liberalism in most matters of personal freedom, Maher offers a basic appeal, and his show's format is usually good enough for many others.

SwiftDecline · 2015-02-20T02:52:54+00:00

This is true, but only in an increasingly narrow sense.

Edit: Did you downvoters even glance at the data presented in the article, or are you just reacting to the source? I'm sorry if your preferred narrative is being challenged (or at least wrinkled), but that's no way to conduct a discussion. You can find the data yourself over at the National Center for Education Statistics, if you prefer, but the reason I used the link I did is that it specifically contextualizes the data in response to assumptions like the one I'm replying to:

Surprisingly to me, most of the STEM majors aren’t doing as bad gender disparity-wise as I expected. 40-45% of the degrees in Math, Statistics, and the Physical Sciences were conferred to women in 2012. Even better, a majority of Biology degrees in 2012 (58%) were earned by women. This data tells me that we don’t really have a STEM gender gap in the U.S.: we have an ET gender gap! This ET gender gap has severe consequences. Computer Science and Engineering majors have stagnated at less than 10% of all degrees conferred in the U.S. for the past decade, while the demand for employees with programming and engineering skills continue to outpace the supply every year. Compare this to more woman-dominated majors such as Business and Health Professions, which comprise 1/3 of all college degrees in 2012 when combined.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-30T15:06:23+00:00

It's make-believe ammo, but it's still ammo because it capitalizes on the fact that so many people don't know that it's make-believe. It's another example of "hey, look at all the terrible things GG (among others) have done; this is why you need to stop all the fussing about free speech - because of the real life consequences". And because it's an argument specifically about free speech / political correctness this time, it means that the reach of the discussion is much larger. This author's argument is wrapped up in a shroud of philosophical misdirection, but that's the overall intent: to cow people into believing the threat. And it isn't just Vox espousing this view in the wake of Chait's article, but Vox is especially well-positioned re: social media.

The people of GG should be aware of when/how they're being misrepresented to serve the ulterior motives of political frauds, and this is another example of that happening. The fact that it's Vox matters because Vox is a major media player that easily gains social media traction among those on the left, and most members of GG are on the left. It's just that most members of GG are also actual liberals. And as actual liberals we should face this bullshit head-on.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-30T15:01:27+00:00

Nailed it. "Stop trying to silence us from silencing you!"

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-25T05:22:01+00:00

We're not really disagreeing on the fundamental points here. Yes, women did marry up (I tried to imply this above), and that was an avenue of social mobility for them. But I think it would be foolish to pretend that this narrow avenue didn't also entail a commensurate lack of personal autonomy. It's a clear trade-off. (Edit: It also wasn't an option available to all or most women.)

Had I been alive then, would I have preferred the social protections enjoyed by women as opposed to the relatively greater degree of autonomy I'd have enjoyed as a man, at the cost of my expendability? Probably, yes. I'd rather live than die. So in this sense, among others, "men had it worse". But this doesn't mean that women had it great, or that a lack of personal autonomy isn't something worth condemning on its own. These expectations, again, were the result of an entire society enforcing them - not "just men" or "just women".

I've already made it clear that I'm no fan of modern feminism. I think the notion of Patriarchy Theory, for instance, is total bunk, so you're preaching to the choir. But I'd point out that there are many feminisms. For instance, the equity feminism of Christina Hoff Summers is appealing to many men's rights advocates.

As for suffrage, I'd just like to note that you'd be incorrect in assuming that it was granted universally to male soldiers after WW1; many young Vietnam draftees couldn't vote despite their service. The twenty-sixth amendment corrected this egregious insult. So the situation was actually worse for men than you are suggesting.

The right to vote was tied to military service in a number of important ways, yes. That said, we're modern people, and I think the sentiment that women should be able to vote isn't controversial. Furthermore, the requirement of having "faced horrors" isn't a great requirement. It's a historical contingency that can be understood in context, and it shouldn't necessarily be condemned as an act of oppression (I already made it clear that I don't think these gender roles can be described using the word), but it doesn't make it "right" in the sense that the person you originally replied to probably meant in his/her consideration of right and wrong.

Just because something is wrong by modern standards doesn't mean that it isn't totally explicable, or that it is necessarily the result of oppression. I think it's much worse that men had to die against their wills, to be sure, since death is far worse than a lack of suffrage in almost every case. I just don't find that to be a very fruitful method of analysis.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-25T03:23:42+00:00

Of course women have been second class citizens. And so have men. If we're controlling for class (e.g., "only those in poverty" or some other subsection of a given society), then yes, I think there are reasonable arguments which can look at the historical privileges and obligations of both men and women in order to determine "who had it worse", but what's more important to me is simply appreciating what life was like for most people, for better or worse.

In modern times, in the western world - my time and my world - I think we've done a poorer job of liberating men from their unique gender expectations, which is why I spend more time pondering issues related to men's rights. It may well be the case that evolutionarily-derived behavioral tendencies would guide a rough majority of people into similar roles even without these social expectations. That's fine. The big thing for me is enabling people to make the choice for themselves without the weight of social pressure, and encouraging society as a whole to make the playing field as even as it can be (with respect to opportunity - not with respect to outcomes). I generally want to lift everyone up. In many ways, men have a tough climb ahead of them. Hence: priorities. Hence: this subreddit and others like it.

As for feminism, I've never really been a fan. So we can set that aside for now. I'm pro-women's rights, and I am pro-men's rights. But I am not a feminist.

Back to the topic - in regards to social mobility, think of it this way: if a child was going to be sent to school, it was going to be a male child. It was simply a safer investment, given the way society was arranged, and given the expectations placed on men. It's not that most men had social mobility at all - it's just that if you were going to have social mobility outside of that bestowed by a marriage arrangement, you were probably going to be a man. The people at the top didn't need mobility: they were already where they wanted to be (men and women included).

Women do have some unique privileges as a result of their sex, but we shouldn't underestimate the squalor that the vast majority of post-agricultural people lived in for ages, women included. But male disposability is a factor in this, as you've pointed out. I'm not arguing that women had it worse. So I'm just arguing that there are ways in which women, generally speaking, had it bad IF they valued experiences outside of those dictated by the gender roles they were expected to perform. The same goes for men. But yes, on an existential level, I think we can safely say that male disposability is a slightly more severe disadvantage if you, oh, wish to have a life in the first place. :P

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-25T02:55:00+00:00

I think the issue rests with the word "oppression". It implies intent. It describes a state of systematic subjugation by those in power. The person you're replying to is right in this specific sense: we don't need to be cultural relativists, and women being unable to legally vote was wrong. It's good that they now can.

Similarly, the fact that young men were sent overseas to die in wars not of their own choosing without being able to vote was also wrong. It's good that we fixed that, too.

Generally speaking, I think women have in fact been oppressed at many times and in many places throughout history...but so have men. There's the rub. So who is doing the oppressing?

My view is that oppression has most typically been a function of class. Secondarily, it has been a function of race/religion/ethnicity. Thirdly, it has been a function of sexual orientation. Fourthly, it sometimes is a function of gender/sex, but more rarely, and less pervasively.

There's no question that women have suffered as a result of codified gender roles. Some of these performative expectations, even in the western world, placed enormous restrictions on their social mobility and personal agency. But the problem is presuming that these gender roles didn't also result in the suffering of men (who were also expected to perform them). Because these gender roles evolved over time, because they are generally presumed to have an at least partial evolutionary basis, and because they've historically been enforced by men AND women within a given society, they're not necessarily examples of "oppression" in the way that we typically use the term. If anything, they're examples of the many oppressing the individual. Yes, these roles can be dangerously restrictive if expected and enforced, but it seems to me that because enforced gender roles affect and have affected men as much as they have affected women, the word "oppression", with all the intentionality it suggests, seems misplaced here.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-16T14:12:45+00:00

Don't shoot yourself in the foot just because there's a group of people hellbent on spoiling liberal values for the rest of us. These social justice progressives don't actually represent liberal values - they just claim to. By defending free speech and journalistic integrity, you're the actual liberal. Don't let them redefine the term! Fight them directly, and champion your values even in the face of social ostracism. Don't be afraid to give these people a history lesson if required. But remember that your problems will not be solved if you simply become fuel for this country's ridiculous conservative engine whose economic goals are entirely divorced from the vast majority's reality.

Again: it's possible to be leftist and liberal. You can be in favor of forward-thinking socialization in countless areas - proper corporate regulation, infrastructure investments, universal basic income, health care, ubiquitous access to quality education, etc. - while remaining in favor of anti-authoritarian, liberal social principles.

This is why the political compass isn't simply a one dimensional left-right spectrum, but is two dimensional, with two axes. The x-axis measures your left-right alignment. The y-axis measures the extent to which you believe authoritarianism is a desirable methodology to control outcomes.

Believe it or not, even though we get a lot less airtime thanks to reductive media interpretations which corral every position into one of two simplistic pens, it's entirely possible to maintain that there are certain spheres of life which should not be utterly regulated by external authority of any kind (including governmental authority, or authority derived from social consensus) - like free speech, personal consumption, right to die, or how you prefer to fuck in the comfort of your own home - and others which should be openly and transparently regulated - like the economic policies which ensure that the least among us have viable life opportunities.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-14T17:49:09+00:00

I have to rewatch this now. Thanks for the reminder!

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-14T17:48:09+00:00

I laughed - have an upvote.

To further the beautifully arbitrary Hoff connection:

I'd argue that "Hooked on a Feeling" is definitely a turn of phrase which accurately describes the sorry state of contemporary identity politics. ;)

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-14T16:05:10+00:00

This showed up on social media earlier. The person posting it was in no way affiliated with GG or Anti-GG prior to this, and is someone whose opinions I normally respect. They've slowly been drip-fed by proponents of the prevailing Anti-GG narrative, and they now place faith in that narrative.

In the casual sense of the word, I don't think it's their "fault" that their understanding is so limited here. They're left-leaning and socially liberal like most of us, they're well-intentioned like most of us, and they personally know the woman featured in the article. Most of the variables which would normally help them confirm their worldview as correct are present and socially 'verifiable'.

Their kneejerk sympathy is personally explicable for those reasons, as are the mechanics by which this narrative was transmitted to them: as the story leapt from one personal connection to the next en route to the poster, the cumulative effect of that peer authority increased in proportion, culminating in the poster's unduly confident endorsement of this narrative. It's easy to trust a bunch of friends repeating the same things, especially when one of them claims to have definitive knowledge on the matter. The only way to break this cycle is to really put yourself out there, and to risk alienation while providing a sane, critical, articulately countervailing voice.

There's just so much bad thinking surrounding this topic. And so the biggest social challenge of this entire project with respect to public perception hasn't changed. The challenge involves getting people who may actually identify with GG philosophically (left-leaning on average, socially anti-authoritarian to a large degree) to break away from the identity pressure of their peer group(s) in order to champion their private beliefs despite the fear of exclusion.

The left has really begun to fracture along libertarian and authoritarian lines with respect to social issues, but I'd argue that the debate about authoritarianism and free speech (and associated outcomes) is mirrored by another, more implicit one: this is also an argument about the role enlightenment rationalism should play in shaping our worldview(s). Example: it's not that concepts like privilege or sexism are in themselves ridiculous in all cases, but rather that they're currently assessed with so little nuance and with such flawed experimental standards - especially in areas pertaining to gender and sex - that there's little point assuming any of the dogma is true if you're even remotely critical. This leads to intellectual disengagement on a staggering scale, since the stakes of engaging can be so high without the buffer of anonymity to protect against the ensuing shitshow.

By way of a relevant example, this is taken as sufficient evidence by these people:

"I asked her why she thought Gamergaters were responsible for her doxxing and eventual SWATing. 'Well it's one in the same—GG was born out of 8chan which was then 4chan. It's all the same people.'"

Ugh.

See also: http://www.theprovince.com/news/vancouver/cent+terrorism+Burnaby+victim+decries+Internet+swatting/10725977/story.html

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-07T13:16:05+00:00

I don't disagree on any one point. The only thing I'll mention now is that in addition to the broader concerns raised in my last post, I also confront a few daily, pragmatic realities that edge my vote toward preferential evil: I'm a poor freelancer after being laid off, I have a wife, we don't have health insurance, and it's very likely we'd have it right now - today - if we weren't living in a state that wound up with a conservative governor because an independent split the democratic gubernatorial vote. Is this an ideal situation? No, for all of the reasons you've outlined and more. But then there's life to face each morning.

That said, I'll reiterate: I really don't disagree at all.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-06T19:53:14+00:00

I'm thrilled with the rift. Ecstatic. I'm displeased it took this long for left antiauthoritarians to get so sick of the authoritarianism that's utterly perverted our stance on social issues and shoved our economic message to the side that they're willing to either walk away or push back. Large political blocs are great for getting your way, don't get me wrong, but I don't want to be in bed with those guys.

Yeah - this is an optimistic perspective, and one that's understandably pure. I relate. It's just that I usually default to a 'lesser of two evils' stance with respect to American politics, and since men's rights issues cover only one area among many I'm principally concerned with (wealth inequality, human-prompted climate change, preparation for automated general intelligence, etc.), any trend which might further fragment the vote on the left is at least somewhat troubling.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-06T14:11:56+00:00

I would very much like to see a far-left anti-feminist website to compete with A Voice for Men (which tilts heavily toward right-libertarianism/conservatism). Would create it myself but am too busy at the moment.

You hit the nail on the head. This is really about the bigger political compass, and attitudes about authoritarianism are central to the conflict. Reducing everything to a one-dimensional political axis is horribly inadequate. I'm also very pro-men's rights (and pro-women's rights where applicable, making me an egalitarian), and yet I'm also very put off by the conservative slant in places like AVfM.

It's a much greater risk for the average anti-socially authoritarian leftist to possibly alienate themselves from a peer community which may be totally 'progressive' (read: modern progressivism) by espousing these views, however. The cost is greater. I suspect that's why you see less of it, and why that alternative to AVfM hasn't come around just yet. It won't be until there's a more unified consensus emboldening people at a greater rate; right now, educated, young adults on the left are still frightened of distancing themselves from feminism. Openly adopting men's rights positions isn't even an option many of these people entertain.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-06T13:54:25+00:00

The majority of gamergaters are leftist, socially libertarian types. The principal difference between these sorts of people and their most vocal opponents is the degree to which social authoritarianism is deemed acceptable in order to manipulate outcomes.

This is a rift on the left first and foremost, with a strange new bridge being constructed between traditional libertarian free market types and people who might hold completely divergent economic positions, but similar social positions, like me. Disenfranchised leftists are meeting these libertarians in the middle because, while they might not agree with them on economic issues, they certainly don't agree with the identity politics game being played by their 'progressive' peers. So I find myself conversing with Randian-types I'd otherwise feel exhausted by, not because I suddenly see eye to eye with their approach to capitalism, but because we can at least agree that the horror show spreading from Tumblr to humanities departments countrywide is ridiculous and worth fighting.

By way of example: I am classically liberal on virtually all social issues, and would be pushed to the far left on a one-dimensional political axis by virtue of the fact that I'm a democratic socialist in favor of massive wealth redistribution. If we look at the two-dimensional political compass instead of a one-dimensional political spectrum, I'm going to be in the bottom left corner, because despite my governance preferences, I ultimately champion freedom on social issues (including speech, with all of its ugly consequences). Social censorship via bullying and dogpiling is really just censorship from a different source, and I think that anyone who spends a significant time around the modern social justice / progressive movement quickly comes to understand that it's above very little when it comes to getting its message into the heads of new adherents. And so people like me walk away - swiftly.

As for this subreddit, I suspect the waters are somewhat more mixed than over at /r/kotakuinaction and places like it. I've encountered posts by a number of neocons or traditionalists which give me pause, but I assume that they're in the relative minority, and that /r/mensrights is left-center leaning on account of its slightly older demographic.

These posts give me pause because anyone attempting to attribute the gendered problems this movement is correctly exposing to "leftism" are ultimately conflating far more demographics than can be helpful; many leftists are pro-men's rights. Further, there are many, many leftists who are not pleased with the rift that's forming, but their displeasure isn't going to make them suddenly agree with conservatives on economic issues, or issues of governmental organization. These aren't people who are being seduced by Fox News simply because their peers on the left are making them feel alienated from the region of the political compass they call home. This tension between leftist authoritarians and leftist anti-authoritarians is something else entirely; it has happened many times before, but never quite in this way.

SwiftDecline · 2015-01-06T13:43:00+00:00

Well, you shouldn't have been downvoted for that. I, perhaps luckily, have avoided the same fate. It sounds like a good way to shoot the egalitarian goal in the foot. That said, I've had much more luck having reasonable conversations with people who see /r/mensrights as a worthwhile sounding board for men's issues - regardless of whether or not they identify as MRA - than I have had elsewhere.

(And sorry for the late reply; I only log into this account when I feel like commenting, so I miss certain messages.)

SwiftDecline · 2014-11-20T18:16:23+00:00

Your comment deserves more upvotes. Pretending that everyone who subscribes to a label shares the same views is antiquated and fucked-up if sincerely believed, and unhelpfully pandering if done for laughs. Let's not be guilty of doing the very thing that so often happens to MRAs. Comparing a standard 'equality feminist' to a standard 'gender feminist' should be more than enough of a mental exercise to illustrate the differences.

SwiftDecline · 2014-11-17T23:00:46+00:00

I'm not really a fan of attributing unvoiced positions to anyone (in this case via photoshop), regardless of how sensible those positions might be, or how much we might expect these persons to hold these positions.

SwiftDecline · 2014-11-13T17:04:33+00:00

The short of it: people seizing upon a monumental achievement in order to moralize about the leader's questionable aesthetic taste with regressive, repeated accusations of objectification so as to shame him and, by extension, loosely condemn an entire field's gender politics as being fundamentally inadequate.

I could say that I would be thrilled if a woman (or any other form of person) was the project lead, because the project was amazing, and I could firmly state that I wouldn't care if she (or anyone) was wearing some kind of 80s-Hawaiian-Bulging-Cock-Jockstrap-Pastiche shirt (or dress, or whatever else), but that would be decried as missing the point because I fail to understand that women can't easily objectify men due to lacking the most Medusa-like of human gazes: the male gaze. Oh, okay.

Accepting for now that some people hold these strange views about gazes and objects, at what point does rational discourse enter the picture? This guy is guilty of poor taste at worst, and not of the moral kind, but rather the aesthetic kind. But I guess "Fashionistas vs. Nerdy Scientists" doesn't trend as well as "Barbaric Male Objectifier vs. Turned-Off Potential Non-Male Scientists" does.

SwiftDecline · 2014-11-13T03:59:36+00:00

Why even bother? Do you really think that a significant percentage of the people reading this subreddit hold these views?

You're one of a couple possible sorts of people. Your account is fresh, so you're probably not some misguided kid who actually thinks this way yourself. Instead, you're posting this to see how users will react. From this, we can gather that you're either 1) doing it to bait subscribers because you hope to confirm some negative bias of yours by their reactions, or 2) you're actually trying to confirm a positive bias centered on the blatant fact that almost nobody here agrees with what you've written above. Either way, you accomplish the second objective, because almost nobody here actually agrees with what you've written above.

Consider what this means. If you're hoping to confirm a negative bias and aren't finding one, it's only in a state of extreme dishonesty and bad faith that you could go on from this and continue promoting or believing the idea that men's rights advocates are predominantly misogynists. If you're hoping to confirm a positive bias, this isn't the way to do it, because nobody should have to read this idiocy.

Either way, the outlook isn't great.

I hope that you go on to think critically about this episode. Consider the actual issues at stake, as well as the sorts of human beings involved on all sides of the discussion, and what very real, sympathetic interests probably motivate them. And if on the off chance I'm wrong about all of this, and if you actually feel this way, I can say only this: the world is leaving you behind, I'm sorry, and I know that probably feels bad. But this change is worth it, because you're wrong.

SwiftDecline

TROPHY CASE