Monday, July 25, 2016

Lydia McGrew joins the alt-right.

Unintentionally of course, but it is what it is.

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your flashy theatrical rap garbage. Forget your idealism about your life in the hood and your idiotic belief that you can either gangbang, rap or dribble a basketball to success. Forget your goddamned 'people', and while you're at it, forget Malcolm X too. The black American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are single fathers and crack addictions. Obama's speeches make them feel good. So does dope. What they need isn't analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need to stop whining about their lot in life, go to the library, and learn how to read.
When asked if the above hypothetical passage flies, Lydia McGrew had this to say:

Actually, I thought at the time when I read the Williamson article that I _did_ think rather similar things could be rightly said about the black communities. Tough love, as it were. And not, ipso facto, racist. Indeed, *mainstream* conservatives used to say that the black community is dysfunctional and its own worst enemy and needs to pull itself up by the bootstraps. I suppose there are still some mainstream conservatives that do, though it's become less acceptable in the last twenty years or so. But I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't. 
Which isn't to say that I agree with every bit of your translation. I think in particular substituting "people" for "gypsum" is more than a bit weird. There are other bits I could disagree with as far as their equivalence to the original. But overall, the general level of straight-talk harshness in neither of the quotes offends me and is not the kind of thing I am condemning. 
So sorry your experiment backfired. Well, no, actually, I'm not sorry at all. I just tell the truth around here. You don't have to like it. 

To which I responded:

Backfired? Far from it, Lydia. It means that harsh, racially-focused condemnation of a community's failings isn't horrible or condemnable at all. 
Which means, in one fell swoop, you've managed to defend a whole lot of what the alt-right says yet is routinely attacked and denounced for. 
Lydia McGrew... welcome to the alt-right! 


Mike said...

What Lydia is missing most of all is that she is not guilty by association with Milo. She is not Milo, she doesn't run with Milo. There is no need for her to feel obligated to speak for Milo or Milo's friends and followers. I have pointed this out to her repeatedly. I will be my own man and refuse to answer for others' behavior. I don't personally engage in much of this rhetoric and anyone who expects me to feel guilt by association can, well, go fuck himself and do so with something rather unpleasant and lacking lubrication.

We know what that game is about, and I have repeatedly warned the W4 crowd that we cannot play this game. It is a power ritual, not an expression of true moral standing. The more someone demands I denounce someone, the less I am willing to do it on principle. Lydia's response should simply be to the left to yank the lumber yard from their eyes before pissing and moaning about the beam in Milo's eye. You could build a section 8 housing complex with the amount of lumber in their eyes as a group.

Crude said...

What's going unsaid in that conversation: Lydia has a special issue with gay guys. As in, I recall her saying she absolutely hates the idea of a 'gay Catholic/Christian' - even celibate ones - and thinks that they should keep that aspect of things completely secret, since in her libertarian fantasy world she'd consider it a fireable offense to be known as gay.

I pointed out at the time that even I (not exactly someone sympathetic to LGBT antics) thought that was going too far - what if someone is outed on Facebook? - and she went off on how it would make men feel weird to work with a gay guy and she questions the masculinity of anyone who doesn't immediately agree with her.

So I have a feeling she may have a bit of an axe to grind with Milo, who not only is a gay Catholic (despite being tremendously conservative) but who's been on the Dangerous Faggot Tour and makes a lot of sex jokes. And who's also a major Trump supporter.

As I said to Malcolm in another post, these things often go beyond the issue at hand. In Lydia's case it's a bit more easy to make an educated guess about what's going on.

Mike said...

Her view of masculinity is interesting because she may feel that way about gays, but she also doesn't exactly like what VD would call "higher beta," alpha or sigma behavior either. I think her view of proper masculinity is in the lower half of his delta in that hierarchy.

I'm personally not entirely comfortable with homosexuality either, but I've worked with homosexuals who knew how to comport themselves politely. Never bothered me because they followed the same pattern of "don't throw it in your face" that one expects of people on sex in general.

As to the issue about closeted gays, I find that view reprehensible. A person who struggles with such desires and consciously tries to do right should be lauded as a person choosing virtue in spite of an innate handicap. And obviously, such a person is not defending their inclinations or trying to make them acceptable under the guise of being a suffering celibate.

Mike said...

And as I said before getting banned:

I look at what Milo Yiannopoulos is doing on his "Dangerous Faggot Tour" (yes, that's the real name) and ask why it took a flaming homosexual, quasi-libertarian from Britain to actually stand up to a feminist on an American campus and respond to her demands for self-censorship and self-abasement with forceful derision.

What is truly emasculating is that it took a flaming homosexual, not exactly a standard-bearer of raw masculinity, to do that.

Anonymous said...

So on a thread about why the alt-right is horrible and just the worst and we should all hate it, it is apparently off topic to defend it.

That's ridiculous.

Mike said...

Compare his response to my first comment. Then look at what immediately followed. Much of the "threadjacking" was me responding to her. Note, that at no point did he tell her to stop taking us down a rabbit hole. Apparently there is an unwritten rule there that she always gets the last word on the threads the men start; on hers, it's just a given since she's writing the last comment and closing the thread a lot lately.