Showing posts with label white male tears. Show all posts
Showing posts with label white male tears. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 March 2017

Regressive Left Pt. 2: Senseless Social Justice


The migrant rape crisis coincides with the emergence of the term “social justice warrior” as a pejorative rather than as a complimentary term, especially following the infamous gamergate controversy. Compare with “political correctness” in the 1990s.  Both political correctness and social justice warrior denote dogmatism and authoritarianism in identity politics, and both are used interchangeably by the right wing as snarl terms to attack all liberal and leftist thought.

Regressive leftism and SJWs are now a major internet phenomena, with newsblogs and pundits both for and against being major sources of controversy and thus big business, especially in ad revenue generated clickbait social media outlets.  The problem is especially bad on college campuses, as the Feb 2, 2017 UC Berkeley riots so recently brought to the attention of so many.

The present form of SJW leftism seemed to kick into high gear during the Obama years, especially at the high water mark of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Beneath the veneer of what came across as a radical protest against the entrenchment of corporate power in American politics were deep strains of regressivism.

Some of it were cultural dysfunctions that plagued American radicalism throughout its entire history: a preoccupation with direct democracy and mass-consensus decision making resulting in movement paralysis.  But alongside this was a kind of SJW operational prototype called the “progressive stack” wherein preference at meetings was given to members of "marginalized groups" over the "privileged."  White males spoke last at meetings, if at all,  Accompanying this were the now familiar accoutrements of the feminization of radicalism: anti-heterosexuality and the insistence upon white and/or male free spaces and ideas being at the heart of the movement.  The only way to end the dominance of one group would be, it would seem, is the imposition of the dominance of another.

"We are the 99%" became "Queer womyn of color uber-alles!"

All of this has had the effect of creating a huge space on the political right to capitalize on popular anxieties over Muslim immigration, frustration with frivolous social justice activism and the dictatorial political correctness underlying it all, that the progressives refuse to acknowledge.  The results have no doubt contributed greatly to the rise of populist nationalism, of the kind exemplified by Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, across Europe and the English speaking world.

Donald Trump's electoral victory stunned a world that had written him off as an unqualified racist and misogynistic curmudgeon.  In retrospect, it is easy to see how his win is a vote of non-confidence against both a GOP establishment that has had no new ideas since Reagan, and a hopelessly compromised DNC establishment that stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton - a corporatist hawk with a lengthy record of voting with the Bush administration behind a thin girl-power veneer.  None of this has taught the DNC much needed lessons about the dangers of ignoring public concerns in favor of doubling down on the narratives dominant in their own mainstream media echo chambers.

The sudden emergence of the identity obsessed social justice warrior in tandem with the Occupy movement does give one pause.  We also know through WikiLeaks that a well funded and concerted effort to create a “liberal echo chamber” began in the 2007-2008 period.  But this echo chamber was built upon a firmly established foundation. Regressive leftism predates America’s first black president.  In his 2007 book What’s LeftBritish leftist Nick Cohen attacks what he perceives as a knee-jerk anti-western tendency in the English speaking western world, which causes them to cherry pick the human rights causes that galvanize them and find common cause with authoritarian government and regimes abroad.

Center left parties in the western world gradually built electoral coalitions around the demographic changes that have been occurring since the 1970s.  Both immigration and political correctness are key components of this coalition.  It was a politically sensible move back in the 1990s when socialism fell out of favor and the clout of organized labor declined due to outsourcing, automation and a more conservative political climate.  But, as Sam Harris enunciates in this video, this coalition is becoming toxic for the center left.



Accusations of racism as a means of stifling debate and smearing opponents have worn thin on once sympathetic populations.

On the subject of Sam Harris, it would seem at first glance that the so called new atheist writers of the early 21st century: besides Sam Harris there were Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, among others, who do not seem to typify regressive leftism.  Most of these figures are not that left wing for one thing, and for another, their criticisms of the dogmatism and irrationality of religious belief were in direct keeping with the humanist liberal tradition of Bertrand Russel and others like him.  It was these authors who first informed the online “skeptic community” that are among today’s staunchest critics of regressive leftism. 

But they set many precedents that helped to legitimize the current wave of regressives.  Some of this was inadvertent: the doctrine of original sin both created and legitimized internalized guilt and inferiority complexes, which subsequently sought out other forms of expression after Christian theology had been thoroughly deconstructed.  White male guilt, by now long institutionalized in some branches of academia for reasons soon to be expanded on, stepped in to fill this psychological void.  In even deeply personal affairs, this dynamic proved useful to certain types of people – radical feminism made it acceptable to think sex is dirty again.  Notice that regressive leftism wasn’t nearly as successful in regions such as the US south, where the Southern Baptist Convention did not liberalize to nearly the degree that mainline protestant denominations did.

The new atheism also galvanized the current crop of SJWs more directly when they made treatment of women and racial minorities a part of their overall critique of religious belief.  Moreover, I think, the new atheism went beyond politics or even relationships between people in their critiques, but also politicized people’s most deeply held beliefs.  While lip service was paid to freedom of conscience, as far as the online league of the militant Godless was concerned, one was on the side of wrong, backwardness and oppression merely for having the wrong beliefs.  Oftentimes, merely believing in the Christian God was equated to being a racist or a fascist sympathizer. 

None of this is to say that critique of religious doctrine is itself inherently regressive, nor did the early 21st century crop of atheist authors pioneer ideological policing in "liberal" quarters.  But stating, or at least implying, that one is stupid or morally wrong for holding the incorrect beliefs both sets and follows dangerous precedents, even if sometimes warranted.  This is especially so when there is, as there frequently was in online flame wars between Christians and atheists, a strong undertone of classist elitism, with religiosity, together with racism, misogyny and homophobia, being associated with being poor, uneducated or a redneck.  While many of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens's critiques of Christian doctrine were fair and accurate, liberal stances in the culture wars were accompanied, perhaps unwittingly, by a growing tendency to stand above, rather than beside, the poor and marginalized.  So long as the poor and marginalized were white, mind you.

Plus, prior to the very recent emergence of controversy surrounding regressive left coddling of Islamism and the whole SJW phenomenon - itself due in part to a schism within the skeptic community over its alleged sexism, the new atheists were extremely sensitive to any suggestion that repression and dogmatism could come from atheists or from the left.  But as we shall see, and have seen, it can and does.

Controversies surrounding dogmatism and censorship on western college campuses predate the presidency of George W. Bush.  Shock pundits such as Milo Yiannopoulos were not the first to call our attention to fanatical and dogmatic enclaves of left wing ideologues on college campuses.  During the Clinton years, and even during the presidency of W’s father, concerns over “political correctness” were raised by authors such as Allan BloomDinesh D’Sousa and Christina Hoff Sommers.  The ideological foundations of the present SJW movement had been long in the process of being laid even then.

Concern was raised not merely regarding the radical nature of the ideas being taught in black studies or women’s studies departments, but with the impact leftist movements were having on campuses.  Concerns that a western conservatism built entirely on anti-communism and then at the peak of its power and influence, were willing, for the most part, to ignore in the days following the collapse of the Berlin wall and the break up of the USSR. 


... Continued in Part 3: Academic Anarchy

Thursday, 17 November 2016

The Bernie Bro's Send Their Regards!

Responses to the Democratic debacle across the internet show that important lessons will be slow in learning for the center left.  Typical might be comments like this:
I live in liberal land where the Mayor of LA and the Governor have already come out said they will enforce no fascist Presidential orders and my Senator just submitted a bill to ban the electoral college. I make enough that I'll greatly benefit from Trumps tax cut even if he ditches the Head of Household single parent deduction. Unless the secret police catch me making out with a drag queen, I'm pretty much safe. My kid is safe. I'm not being marginalized.

That's kinda the definition of privilege.
I think it's important to look at things like this and ask ourselves what could have been done differently so that there would have been a different result. Because, and I frankly don't give a toss what anyone says about muh white male privilege - the outcome of this election was a fucking disaster.  For all kinds of people.  Not just gays.  Not just blacks.  Not just Latinos.  Not just Muslims.  Not just women.  Not just LGBT people.  Not just the poor.  Not just the working class.  Not just the middle class.  Not just anybody who makes less than 500K/year.  All kinds of people.

When I look at the paragraph I just wrote, it occurs to me that a LOT of people would be vastly better off without a GOP presidency and a GOP congress than with them.  More people than for whom the reverse would be true.  So my question is: how did we get here?

We got here when the working class white males were smugly dismissed with "angry dudes" and "privilege."  When an unemployed father in the rust belt was lectured for his "privilege" by a fucking 150K/year tenured black woman's studies professor in some shitty rag like the HuffPost.

We got here when BLM types attacked "white feminism" or crashed Gay Pride Parades, making other people's struggles all about them and bandying about accusations of "racism" and "privilege" for no other reason than that they know damn well it shames and silences people.  Or it used to.

We got here when our news-feeds were innundated with crap like "Cis/het black males are the white people of black people"

We got here when Halloween costumes became "Cultural Appropriation" and equated with slavery and genocide.

We got here when compliments and civil greetings of women by men became stalking, harassment and rape culture.

We got here when white cisgender gay men were banished from campus LGBTQ groups for not being marginalized enough.

We got here when supporters of a presidential candidate who would have given the entire country universal health care, free college and a $15 minimum wage, if he could, were smugly dismissed as "Bernie Bro's" because they felt that real tangible economic benefits that would really help the most vulnerable were better things to base a voting decision on than some feminist blogger's vagina or African ancestors.

We got here when we were asked to ignore Clinton's abyssmal record of supporting regressive neoliberal legislation going all the way back to her husband's presidency.

None of the above are solid reasons for voting for Donald Trump.  But they are valid reasons for NOT voting for Democrats either.  And that was all Trump needed.
Now obviously, I'm not the cry-in type. But I'm also not the one being marginalized. My partner is a pretty big Hillary supporter, both vocally and financially, and she's scared. She's scared about women's rights. Minorities are scared. Gay people are scared.
I hope the hysteria turns out to have been unwarranted and Trump turns out to be more of a Nixonian moderate than /pol/ on 4chan in the White House.  I am sorry about your partner, [name redacted], and I hope that women's rights, minority rights and gay rights come out of this unscathed.  I don't mean to pick a fight with you, or anyone, and I wish harm on none.

Problem is, plenty of harm was wished on me.  Not by any of you personally, but by those who dismissed any disagreement with them as "angry white dudes", "privilege", "white/mansplaining" , "#killallwhitemen", etc.  Now I know full well that none of the above have any actual teeth and pale in comparison to real oppression suffered by people of differing identities over the years.  But then again, trigger warnings, safe spaces, misgendering and microaggressions also pale in comparison to real oppression suffered over the years too.

The problem was the smugness, the double standards, the glaring lack of self awareness, the hypocrisy, the sick competitive victimhood, the empty virtue signalling, the utter and complete lack of policy substance, the censorious mindset, the puritanism, the anti-heterosexualism, the manipulativeness, the flagrant weaponization of grievance, the arrogance and the entitlement masquerading as social justice - a bastardization of language that would make George Orwell cringe were he alive to see it.  It's about recognizing your need for allies, and treating those allies with respect instead of spitting in their faces all the time because "privilege" or because "old white dudes" and then wondering why they abandon you in the crucial hour.

Come 2020, we'll be much more likely to get different results if the attitude is SOLIDARITY instead of "check your privilege."  If the attitude is "an injury to one is an injury to all" instead of "I drink white male tears."  What a farce!  You're all going to learn the hard way that the people who drink white male tears do so out of crystal goblets.  They're on Wall Street.  In the Pentagon.  In the State Department.  In the offices of defense industry lobbyists.  They're not on tumblr or buzzfeed.  And they drink white female tears too.  And black tears.  And gay tears.  And the drinking's looking to be pretty good for the next four years.

If you want to make the left great again, come check out places like this, view videos like this and read articles like this.  Just for examples.  There's hundreds more like them.  But until then ...

On Nov. 8, 2016, the SJWs of America had their Red Wedding.  And guess what?  

THE BERNIE BRO'S SEND THEIR REGARDS!


Critical Theory - the Unlikely Conservatism

If "critical theory" is to be a useful and good thing, it needs to punch up, not down. This is a crux of social justice thinking. ...