Tuesday, July 26, 2016

What's Wrong With the Aftermath

Another exchange done. Spoiler alert: Lydia locked the thread. I'm as stunned as you are!

But just as Lydia has the right to do that, I'll be taking my right to respond here. Because this was an issue I care about a bit more than usual.

Sayeth Lyd, regarding cuckservative. (We can say that word here.)
So there we have it. An insult that means that a man has a sexual fetish that has to do with watching his wife have sex with other men is a "shiny, fun new word" and is comparable to calling someone "racist" or "neo-nazi." (Not that the latter could objectively describe actual phenomena or anything. Not that there actually are racists and neo-nazis around in the world to whom one might be referring.) Indeed, not just comparable, but less bad. The latter are describable as "vile." The former is, according to Crude, "completely justified, often, if fierce."
Man, where to begin.

For one thing, I assure you - that word does describe an 'objective phenomena', and there's some creepy fucks skulking around looking for this action. It's a degrading, insulting, humiliating word. It stings. Especially, I've noticed, if one's a bit of a cuck. It also more broadly refers to the phenomena of people who just seem thrilled at the idea of cultural and ethnic replacement - again, a not-unheard-of phenomena, and I don't just mean among the creepier SJWs.

Watching Jeb! walk around and give speeches in spanish - 'I love the idea of a latinized US so much, I decided to help out!' - is the height of conservative cuckery. Yes, I know, he thought he was being a brilliant political trailblazer by marrying a Mexican woman, converting to Catholicism, and learning how to speak spanish. Newsflash: it was not. I do think he's going to be president someday, but that hinges on whether Mexico allows immigrants to run for that office.

As to the 'sexual' angle of the word, with it being implied that that's beyond the pale: cry me a river. I've watched crypto-sexual critique be deployed against people opposed to illegal immigration time and again. I've watched Rick Wilson cackle about how Trump supporters were all anime-watching jackoffs, which makes Trump's stomping of his 'side' that much more hilarious. The cucks' complaint here reminds me of Dawkins' fall from 'How can mockery and derision ever be used against us? We can't lose!' to 'How dare everyone describe me as a pathetic has-been who wasn't even a good biologist!' Same script, different actors.

Finally - 'racists and neo-nazis' accurately describe maybe a hundredth of the people those terms are used against, in any reasonable definition of the word. Same with anti-semite. If you're going to green-light the abundant use of those terms on the grounds that it can, in theory, pick out an 'objective' phenomena, then I assure you - I am not completely convinced that all of Jeb!'s kids are his. And if you object that I can't prove that, then I'll note the inability for most people to sufficiently, meaningfully back up their 'neo-nazi', 'fascist', 'racist' charges beyond 'you said something mean, even if it's true!'
And it's no big deal to tell a black woman that she looks like an ape. 
Honest to God, Lydia - it really isn't. Yes, I know - the comparison is considered highly racist by the invisible yet omnipresent goddess of Decency, but frankly, I just don't care much, and most people don't care much unless they think they can shame someone and get a little power besides. As I've said - it's the sort of thing you say, at most, 'Hey, that's wrong' if pressed about. You know - tsk tsk. Demands that you hunt down such curs and destroy them (but only if they're a victim class, only if they're of the right political persuasion, etc) are inane. Put another way: jerking off is a sin, but I think we can all agree that demanding hands be chopped off over it is an overreaction. Leave it at 'hey, knock that off, and don't do it in front of kids'.

That woman in particular is not easy on the eyes, and she's not particularly pleasant to others either. See her comments about whites, among other things. And see the movie she was involved in, which ran -heavily- on attacking large groups of people who disliked it, saying they're racists, sexists, misogynists and more.
 If she complains about it (and other insults such as "c**n," "n*gg*," etc., she also claimed to have received a picture of herself with s**** on her face) she's "caterwauling," and if I complain about either of these (and others, such as the anti-semitic vileness we have received here) and about people who make a professional hobby of downplaying such things, I'm wasting valuable time which would be better spent on "accomplishments" like, I dunno, ruining the career of a conservative politician who criticizes the alt-right.
Coon, nigga, and semen. Christ, we don't censor any words nowadays EXCEPT the PC 'offensive' ones. Enough.

Oh, she can complain. But screaming and carrying on and demanding that these people - and Milo! - be purged, even if they didn't do anything but because, I don't know, there are subscribers involved? Yeah that's absurd, especially in a world where being inundated with 'cunt' and death threats normally doesn't result in such responses, at least if you're conservative. That conservatives want to rush to get in on the bandwagon - especially Lydia, who in any other case would be accused of doing so only due to massive gay-hating 'homophobia' on her part? Yeah, that's deplorable too.

As for ruining the careers, there's a difference. Those politicians tried mightily to ruin other people's careers. They, finally, failed. But they immolated their own careers in the process. Cruz was allowed to get up onstage and give his pissy little speech. What a shock - it turns out even his supporters hated his attitude. How much sympathy should I have for Cruz destroying himself because he attempted to destroy someone else, and failed miserably? That's leagues different from even what Milo experienced, where his voice on a worldwide platform was cut off, to the apparent approval of the increasingly SJW-like "conservatives".

tl;dr version - we live in a world where conservatives and whites and men get savaged, and no one cares. Not even conservatives, who - as Jeffrey S knows - are sometimes all too happy to chime in with a 'Yeah!' The idea that nevertheless those groups must ride to the fucking rescue whenever someone mocks one of their lowlier figureheads, is insane.
But remember, Crude is just defending the argumentative tactics of Ed Feser. Or something. Not supporting vile insult at all. Got it.
Ed Feser was criticized for The Last Superstition because of his 'polemical tone'. He writes aggressively. I've read every interaction he's had on his blog - he suffers little bullshit, it is true. He will be aggressive. He will even mock. He's also surprisingly sharp with the photoshop now and then.

And I'm not on his level. Ed's a different category, someone who takes very intricate arguments (which I am forever an amateur at best with) and communicates them to the masses, in a way that enlightens them. He arms them with knowledge they can -use-. His intellect and his arguments are his primary weapon, but he has zero problem calling bullshit as bullshit, and engaging in some level of aggressive mockery. We're not in the same category, but at the same time, Ed is -vastly- different from typical Christian philosophers, and philosophers in general. Most of whom fall over themselves to be the most polite, sweet-toned, genteel person in the room, often to their detriment.

That, I think, is what Perilanda may be getting at. Ed talked in ways that few modern philosophers or theologians did. He still does. It -works-. He did it during a time where most critics of New Atheism always started off with talking about how brilliant Dawkins was or how atheists are such great and moral people. Ed cut the shit and accomplished something major in the process.

In a primitive way, the Alt Right does the same. If their Venn diagrams overlap, it's that both Ed and the Alt Right do not automatically kowtow to idols that most everyone else does. They do not pay lip service to glorious truths that are neither glorious nor true. After that, they largely part ways - Ed persuades through reasoned argument and little rhetoric, the alt-right is absolutely heavy on rhetoric - but that overlap is key.

Anyway, that's my response to all this. Not for Lydia's edification - she stopped reading at 'cuck' if she saw it at all - but I felt it needed to be said.


Mike said...

I have never seen an alt-right figure say that logical arguments don't matter period. Every single reference I've seen has been that they don't matter in the implied context of them not mattering to most people at most times. Functionally, they don't matter just because the number of people swayed by rhetoric is so huge.

Crude said...

Some conservatives seem to have an absolute fetish for respectfully giving detailed arguments, the more intricate the better. Except ones aimed at explaining why their methods are failures.

Mike said...

I personally prefer Feser's style, but I recognize it's like being talented only at Marquess of Queensbury boxing in an age where MMA is the dominant fighting system. I don't control the Zeitgeist, I just acknowledge that the Zeitgeist is real. The Alt-Right is "winning" because it is studying MMA while mainstream conservatives insist on fighting "like a gentleman." They'll be awfully surprised to find that their view is rooted in a false dichotomy and one can in fact be both a withering and nasty user of rhetoric and capable of making Feser-like dialectical arguments.

Mike said...

Don't know if you read Dalrock, but I used to link to him at W4. In explaining something to my father about conservatism in relation to Mary Kassian and the feminist/complementarians at CBMW, I realized something. Consider Lydia's reaction to Kassian.

She acknowledges that much is wrong with her. In fact she even finds it unnerving the extent to which the women demean June Cleaver since Cleaver represents a bonafide conservative woman who consciously embraces a traditional worldview without qualification.

Yet the need to acknowledge the extent to which is Kassian might agree on gender identity and some other things is held up in charity. I don't fault the need to be charitable itself, but the unwillingness to put it in context. The fact is that Marxists agree with us in principle that police shouldn't be shooting workers for pleasure. Do we make common cause with Marxists because they have a slight overlap with us there?

It's like the sheep saying "it's not a wolf, it's a wild dog. Wild dogs are domesticated dogs gone feral, so at heart it's still more like the sheepdog that serves my shepherd." Meanwhile the sheepdog is racing across the field trying to drive the wild dog back, recognizing that wolf or not, it is a predator but the sheep insists on splitting hairs based on a "wolf vs sheep" false dichotomy. And as we've seen, when the sheepdog comes running back, the sheep call the sheepdog a traitor to dogs.

Crude said...

Dalrock's on the sidebar, in fact.

I don't want to psychoanalyze Lydia too deeply. I will say, though, that her very awkward, clumsy defense of 'don't punish women for abortion' says more than many think.

Anonymous said...

Eh, Dalrock does much the same, that's a pot/kettle situation really. His e-drama with Lori Alexander, who he approves of even though she's posted favorably about Mary Kassian too, is a recent case in point.

I mean, we can extend this sort of critique to the entirety of the alt-right.

I would say, though, that Mrs. McGrew's hypocrisy about things like birth control (she contracepted and now expresses horror at poor women contracepting, if the government pays the bill) are a bigger deal and more of a concern for Christians. I say this as a non-ABC Protestant, though. A lot of my fellow Protestants want someone to look down on I guess, so they effectively encourage single motherhood by flailing about birth control use by poor women but rushing to be nicer to them than married mothers if they do fornicate and end up pregnant "so they won't abort".

Crude said...

Since when do Protestants of any stripe meaningfully protest birth control anyway? I know they're not fans of sex-ed, generally, for a number of reasons.

I can't come down on Lydia for having contracepted once upon a time. Her abortion comments, I think, were painfully inadequate - and I think symptomatic of a larger problem. Trump accidentally exposed just how rotten the state of the pro-life movement is. At this point it should be clear: the major goal of its SJW infiltrators is to 'redefine' pro-life to basically be entirely generalized.

In fact, that deserves a post.

Anonymous said...

A lot of Protestants do meaningfully avoid discussing the implications of readily available birth control and do reject it, there are a number of different subcultures that do.

My point was that it's part and parcel. There's a whole tendency to take one's ability to retreat to the private sphere for all things for granted while bludgeoning the poor without really helping them have even what was available privately in the past.

IOW, Protestants err in treating contraception as a private, privileged thing not to be shared with the poor, who should be happy to be objects of pregnant pity instead rather than clearly rejecting it and then dealing with the fornication issues that lead to the pregnancies.

I'm actually glad you brought this up, I never really thought about all of this before, but it is weird to say contraception is ok as long as you don't (surgically) abort but then never provide that particular form of charity for the poor.

Crude said...

I'm not as in-tune with protestant culture, and some aspects of Catholic culture still surprise me, so I'll just have to listen and evaluate there.

One of the problems that plagues the pro-life movement - and Christianity generally - is that religion is so prominent (even in the West) that those of the political religion are constantly looking for ways to co-opt the teachings. Co-option means emphasizing some moral teachings, and either twisting them into absurdities, or suppressing other teachings. That's the new game with the pro-life movement.

In general, I'm sympathetic to the idea that - of course - there's more to Christianity than 'stop abortion'. But I know what's going on when people decide that they want to make 'pro-life' mean 'in favor of charity generally' rather than just 'anti-abortion' - they're trying to make it so Obama can be called pro-life (He passed a health care package!) and this politician, despite passing laws against abortion, isn't (he opposed some welfare package!)

At this point, my litmus test for any talk of charity is simple: if someone can't tell me the duties of the poor, then I won't listen to them when they talk about the rights of the poor. "You must help the poor, you must give them this and that, and the law should force you to do that" + "The poor have no duties, we can have no expectations of them" = 'I'm either dealing with the tremendously ignorant or the actively malicious.'

Mike said...

The political issues around reproduction are a sort of quagmire for us. On the one hand, birth control can lead to hedonism. It usually does. On the other hand, society has an intrinsic obligation to support children whose parents cannot support them. It is not feasible for the polity to micromanage the reproductive habits of the underclass into virtue because the underclass is largely there due to poor choices, low time preference, etc. There is also the ugly element of "you get more of what you pay for" which leaves us with a damned if you do, damned if you don't relationship with them. Either we are risking starving the needy or allowing the needy the sense of unearned security that leads them to have more kids.

Being a Protestant, I am not capable of falling back on whatever "the church says." My personal take is closer to Catholicism, but I am not convinced of the notion that birth control (non-abortifacient) is intrinsically immoral. However, given what it is to whatever extent it should be legal, it should be legal for married couples only, be provided by a prescription and the law should require at least two children before it can be prescribed.