Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:37 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1692 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20562
Location: STRAYA CUNT
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Your turn to take up Santa's Socratic questioning bit then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24923
happyhooker wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Eveready


You called. What has Floppy done now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17031
EverReady wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Eveready


You called. What has Floppy done now?

Despite being completely sober, I read his post entirely incorrectly.

Apologies.

Maybe I should give this sobriety malarkey a rest. It's shit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24923
happyhooker wrote:
EverReady wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Eveready


You called. What has Floppy done now?

Despite being completely sober, I read his post entirely incorrectly.

Apologies.

Maybe I should give this sobriety malarkey a rest. It's shit


Was my name being besmirched...again :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22992
Location: SOB>Todd
Dumbledore wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Your turn to take up Santa's Socratic questioning bit then?

It's more just....
Was it illegal? No.
Was it non-consensual? No.
Does it paint him in a good light? God no.
Is it mine or the entire world's business? Doesn't feel like it.

It doesn't feel helpful for the metoo movement either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8343
Location: Plum
Magaret Atwood’s take is causing some ructions. A good read.

Quote:
Am I a bad feminist.

It seems that I am a "Bad Feminist." I can add that to the other things I've been accused of since 1972, such as climbing to fame up a pyramid of decapitated men's heads (a leftie journal), of being a dominatrix bent on the subjugation of men (a rightie one, complete with an illustration of me in leather boots and a whip) and of being an awful person who can annihilate – with her magic White Witch powers – anyone critical of her at Toronto dinner tables. I'm so scary! And now, it seems, I am conducting a War on Women, like the misogynistic, rape-enabling Bad Feminist that I am.

What would a Good Feminist look like, in the eyes of my accusers?

My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

Read also: More than 10 writers remove their names from controversial letter in Steven Galloway case

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.

Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.

So let us suppose that my Good Feminist accusers, and the Bad Feminist that is me, agree on the above points. Where do we diverge? And how did I get into such hot water with the Good Feminists?

In November of 2016, I signed – as a matter of principle, as I have signed many petitions – an Open Letter called UBC Accountable, which calls for holding the University of British Columbia accountable for its failed process in its treatment of one of its former employees, Steven Galloway, the former chair of the department of creative writing, as well as its treatment of those who became ancillary complainants in the case. Specifically, several years ago, the university went public in national media before there was an inquiry, and even before the accused was allowed to know the details of the accusation. Before he could find them out, he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. The public – including me – was left with the impression that this man was a violent serial rapist, and everyone was free to attack him publicly, since under the agreement he had signed, he couldn't say anything to defend himself. A barrage of invective followed.

But then, after an inquiry by a judge that went on for months, with multiple witnesses and interviews, the judge said there had been no sexual assault, according to a statement released by Mr. Galloway through his lawyer. The employee got fired anyway. Everyone was surprised, including me. His faculty association launched a grievance, which is continuing, and until it is over, the public still cannot have access to the judge's report or her reasoning from the evidence presented. The not-guilty verdict displeased some people. They continued to attack. It was at this point that details of UBC's flawed process began to circulate, and the UBC Accountable letter came into being.

A fair-minded person would now withhold judgment as to guilt until the report and the evidence are available for us to see. We are grownups: We can make up our own minds, one way or the other. The signatories of the UBC Accountable letter have always taken this position. My critics have not, because they have already made up their minds. Are these Good Feminists fair-minded people? If not, they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.

A digression: Witch talk. Another point against me is that I compared the UBC proceedings to the Salem witchcraft trials, in which a person was guilty because accused, since the rules of evidence were such that you could not be found innocent. My Good Feminist accusers take exception to this comparison. They think I was comparing them to the teenaged Salem witchfinders and calling them hysterical little girls. I was alluding instead to the structure in place at the trials themselves.

There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.

This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.

Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.

The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.

If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. Fiction writers are particularly suspect because they write about human beings, and people are morally ambiguous. The aim of ideology is to eliminate ambiguity.

The UBC Accountable letter is also a symptom – a symptom of the failure of the University of British Columbia and its flawed process. This should have been a matter addressed by Canadian Civil Liberties or B.C. Civil Liberties. Maybe these organizations will now put up their hands. Since the letter has now become a censorship issue – with calls being made to erase the site and the many thoughtful words of its writers – perhaps PEN Canada, PEN International, CJFE and Index on Censorship may also have a view.

The letter said from the beginning that UBC failed accused and complainants both. I would add that it failed the taxpaying public, who fund UBC to the tune of $600-million a year. We would like to know how our money was spent in this instance. Donors to UBC – and it receives billions of dollars in private donations – also have a right to know.

In this whole affair, writers have been set against one another, especially since the letter was distorted by its attackers and vilified as a War on Women. But at this time, I call upon all – both the Good Feminists and the Bad Feminists like me – to drop their unproductive squabbling, join forces and direct the spotlight where it should have been all along – at UBC. Two of the ancillary complainants have now spoken out against UBC's process in this affair. For that, they should be thanked.

Once UBC has begun an independent inquiry into its own actions – such as the one conducted recently at Wilfrid Laurier University – and has pledged to make that inquiry public, the UBC Accountable site will have served its purpose. That purpose was never to squash women. Why have accountability and transparency been framed as antithetical to women's rights?

A war among women, as opposed to a war on women, is always pleasing to those who do not wish women well. This is a very important moment. I hope it will not be squandered


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4917
Location: Terenure, Dublin 6, Ireland
c69 wrote:
As a self confessed Socialist, I fecking hate feminists with a passion.


I can't abide feminists and socialists. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17818
Dumbledore wrote:
Heymans wrote:
So she gets eaten out, and then blows him, but she didn't want to fudge? And then he called her a cab, so he's basically a rapist?

Gtfo with that bullshit, you don't get to complain months after (he'd just won a prize, you see). Thats attention whoring, plain and simple.

:lol: Woman anonymously recounts gross datI'm geune with B-list celebrity who flaunts his feminist credentials. Deffo in it for the attention.


I'm genuinely cross at this. For two reasons. One as you say a B list feminist throws his credentials by showing he's juts a nasty creep who won't take no and is lucky he isn't alpha male enough to make it sexual abuse in an overt way, but he certainly carries on in his creepy Gollum like way with the same sexual predator way.

Or the fact judging from the report of the night his chat to her is so shit it brings shame to males everywhere. I just want to tell women we are not all creepy sexual predators who don't really respect women when the the doors are closed nor is our chat usually that shit that you no one blames you for not wanting sex.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14815
eldanielfire wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Heymans wrote:
So she gets eaten out, and then blows him, but she didn't want to fudge? And then he called her a cab, so he's basically a rapist?

Gtfo with that bullshit, you don't get to complain months after (he'd just won a prize, you see). Thats attention whoring, plain and simple.

:lol: Woman anonymously recounts gross datI'm geune with B-list celebrity who flaunts his feminist credentials. Deffo in it for the attention.


I'm genuinely cross at this. For two reasons. One as you say a B list feminist throws his credentials by showing he's juts a nasty creep who won't take no and is lucky he isn't alpha male enough to make it sexual abuse in an overt way, but he certainly carries on in his creepy Gollum like way with the same sexual predator way.

Or the fact judging from the report of the night his chat to her is so shit it brings shame to males everywhere. I just want to tell women we are not all creepy sexual predators who don't really respect women when the the doors are closed nor is our chat usually that shit that you no one blames you for not wanting sex.


Speak for yourself. It doesn't bring shame for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20562
Location: STRAYA CUNT
Floppykid wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Your turn to take up Santa's Socratic questioning bit then?

It's more just....
Was it illegal? No.
Was it non-consensual? No.
Does it paint him in a good light? God no.
Is it mine or the entire world's business? Doesn't feel like it.

It doesn't feel helpful for the metoo movement either.

Couple of things. It wasn't non-consensual, but it was forceful and manipulative. You can see why she'd feel uncomfortable at the time, and violated after. And is it the world's business? Yes and no? As soon as you build your brand and career around your personality and actions - as a good and woke dude in this case - you open yourself up.

Seems pretty helpful to me though? If it is about exposing sexual harassment across the spectrum, then I don't see how its unhelpful. I mean, he didn't rape her and then have ex-Mossad agents stalk her, but it's pretty comfortably harassment IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20562
Location: STRAYA CUNT
Bindi wrote:
Magaret Atwood’s take is causing some ructions. A good read.

Quote:
Am I a bad feminist.

It seems that I am a "Bad Feminist." I can add that to the other things I've been accused of since 1972, such as climbing to fame up a pyramid of decapitated men's heads (a leftie journal), of being a dominatrix bent on the subjugation of men (a rightie one, complete with an illustration of me in leather boots and a whip) and of being an awful person who can annihilate – with her magic White Witch powers – anyone critical of her at Toronto dinner tables. I'm so scary! And now, it seems, I am conducting a War on Women, like the misogynistic, rape-enabling Bad Feminist that I am.

What would a Good Feminist look like, in the eyes of my accusers?

My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

Read also: More than 10 writers remove their names from controversial letter in Steven Galloway case

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.

Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.

So let us suppose that my Good Feminist accusers, and the Bad Feminist that is me, agree on the above points. Where do we diverge? And how did I get into such hot water with the Good Feminists?

In November of 2016, I signed – as a matter of principle, as I have signed many petitions – an Open Letter called UBC Accountable, which calls for holding the University of British Columbia accountable for its failed process in its treatment of one of its former employees, Steven Galloway, the former chair of the department of creative writing, as well as its treatment of those who became ancillary complainants in the case. Specifically, several years ago, the university went public in national media before there was an inquiry, and even before the accused was allowed to know the details of the accusation. Before he could find them out, he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. The public – including me – was left with the impression that this man was a violent serial rapist, and everyone was free to attack him publicly, since under the agreement he had signed, he couldn't say anything to defend himself. A barrage of invective followed.

But then, after an inquiry by a judge that went on for months, with multiple witnesses and interviews, the judge said there had been no sexual assault, according to a statement released by Mr. Galloway through his lawyer. The employee got fired anyway. Everyone was surprised, including me. His faculty association launched a grievance, which is continuing, and until it is over, the public still cannot have access to the judge's report or her reasoning from the evidence presented. The not-guilty verdict displeased some people. They continued to attack. It was at this point that details of UBC's flawed process began to circulate, and the UBC Accountable letter came into being.

A fair-minded person would now withhold judgment as to guilt until the report and the evidence are available for us to see. We are grownups: We can make up our own minds, one way or the other. The signatories of the UBC Accountable letter have always taken this position. My critics have not, because they have already made up their minds. Are these Good Feminists fair-minded people? If not, they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.

A digression: Witch talk. Another point against me is that I compared the UBC proceedings to the Salem witchcraft trials, in which a person was guilty because accused, since the rules of evidence were such that you could not be found innocent. My Good Feminist accusers take exception to this comparison. They think I was comparing them to the teenaged Salem witchfinders and calling them hysterical little girls. I was alluding instead to the structure in place at the trials themselves.

There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.

This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.

Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.

The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.

If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. Fiction writers are particularly suspect because they write about human beings, and people are morally ambiguous. The aim of ideology is to eliminate ambiguity.

The UBC Accountable letter is also a symptom – a symptom of the failure of the University of British Columbia and its flawed process. This should have been a matter addressed by Canadian Civil Liberties or B.C. Civil Liberties. Maybe these organizations will now put up their hands. Since the letter has now become a censorship issue – with calls being made to erase the site and the many thoughtful words of its writers – perhaps PEN Canada, PEN International, CJFE and Index on Censorship may also have a view.

The letter said from the beginning that UBC failed accused and complainants both. I would add that it failed the taxpaying public, who fund UBC to the tune of $600-million a year. We would like to know how our money was spent in this instance. Donors to UBC – and it receives billions of dollars in private donations – also have a right to know.

In this whole affair, writers have been set against one another, especially since the letter was distorted by its attackers and vilified as a War on Women. But at this time, I call upon all – both the Good Feminists and the Bad Feminists like me – to drop their unproductive squabbling, join forces and direct the spotlight where it should have been all along – at UBC. Two of the ancillary complainants have now spoken out against UBC's process in this affair. For that, they should be thanked.

Once UBC has begun an independent inquiry into its own actions – such as the one conducted recently at Wilfrid Laurier University – and has pledged to make that inquiry public, the UBC Accountable site will have served its purpose. That purpose was never to squash women. Why have accountability and transparency been framed as antithetical to women's rights?

A war among women, as opposed to a war on women, is always pleasing to those who do not wish women well. This is a very important moment. I hope it will not be squandered

This is what I was talking about earlier, where second-wave types are getting uncomfortable with the #metoo movement because of the implications for the existing power structure. They'd rather keep their little slice of it than have the whole thing torn down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6300
Quote:
“Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” she responded. “You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.” He replied with an apology.

Read Grace’s text message again.

Put in other words: I am angry that you weren’t able to read my mind.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opin ... sment.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Dumbledore wrote:
This is what I was talking about earlier, where second-wave types are getting uncomfortable with the #metoo movement because of the implications for the existing power structure. They'd rather keep their little slice of it than have the whole thing torn down.

A frank, and if may say so, revealing, post. What do you propose will emerge from the efforts to tear everything down, all at once? Do you believe that entire populations of nation-states will go along with this cultural revolution - and that is what you appear to be acknowledging, at least in this sphere - without resistance? How important is political stability to you? Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited? What will and should occur (if and) when they congeal into a more ahem coherent form than Trump? Do you believe that the revolution you appear to be proposing will 'win'? I guess the final, and perhaps it should have been first, question would be whether or not you would be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices? Do you accept that the cultural revolution you appear to support is inherently risky, that it may backfire?


Last edited by pontifex on Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
One final (or perhaps not) question. Supposing the gender revolution is successful, gender norms no longer exist, and, having dismantled hetero-normativity, we have a single normative principle which governs social relations informally - tolerance and implied absolute negative liberty - how might you replace informal, normative regulation of social relations, in order to secure safe interaction between imperfect humans and ensure that no individual's liberty is impeded?


Last edited by pontifex on Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22992
Location: SOB>Todd
Dumbledore wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Your turn to take up Santa's Socratic questioning bit then?

It's more just....
Was it illegal? No.
Was it non-consensual? No.
Does it paint him in a good light? God no.
Is it mine or the entire world's business? Doesn't feel like it.

It doesn't feel helpful for the metoo movement either.

Couple of things. It wasn't non-consensual, but it was forceful and manipulative. You can see why she'd feel uncomfortable at the time, and violated after. And is it the world's business? Yes and no? As soon as you build your brand and career around your personality and actions - as a good and woke dude in this case - you open yourself up.

Seems pretty helpful to me though? If it is about exposing sexual harassment across the spectrum, then I don't see how its unhelpful. I mean, he didn't rape her and then have ex-Mossad agents stalk her, but it's pretty comfortably harassment IMO.

I can see why she'd be uncomfortable, yeah, but it's also not like he forced himself on her.
I don't really know Aziz's personality as I don't like the shows he's in, but I'm not convinced.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Atwood's an interesting one. She has gone through the process of imagining a world that reactionary forces might create in the wake of an attempted cultural revolution coalescing with other crises, and her imagined world looks more plausible now than it did when she wrote A Handmaid's Tale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
Dumbledore wrote:
Bindi wrote:
Magaret Atwood’s take is causing some ructions. A good read.

Quote:
Am I a bad feminist.

It seems that I am a "Bad Feminist." I can add that to the other things I've been accused of since 1972, such as climbing to fame up a pyramid of decapitated men's heads (a leftie journal), of being a dominatrix bent on the subjugation of men (a rightie one, complete with an illustration of me in leather boots and a whip) and of being an awful person who can annihilate – with her magic White Witch powers – anyone critical of her at Toronto dinner tables. I'm so scary! And now, it seems, I am conducting a War on Women, like the misogynistic, rape-enabling Bad Feminist that I am.

What would a Good Feminist look like, in the eyes of my accusers?

My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

Read also: More than 10 writers remove their names from controversial letter in Steven Galloway case

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.

Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.

So let us suppose that my Good Feminist accusers, and the Bad Feminist that is me, agree on the above points. Where do we diverge? And how did I get into such hot water with the Good Feminists?

In November of 2016, I signed – as a matter of principle, as I have signed many petitions – an Open Letter called UBC Accountable, which calls for holding the University of British Columbia accountable for its failed process in its treatment of one of its former employees, Steven Galloway, the former chair of the department of creative writing, as well as its treatment of those who became ancillary complainants in the case. Specifically, several years ago, the university went public in national media before there was an inquiry, and even before the accused was allowed to know the details of the accusation. Before he could find them out, he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. The public – including me – was left with the impression that this man was a violent serial rapist, and everyone was free to attack him publicly, since under the agreement he had signed, he couldn't say anything to defend himself. A barrage of invective followed.

But then, after an inquiry by a judge that went on for months, with multiple witnesses and interviews, the judge said there had been no sexual assault, according to a statement released by Mr. Galloway through his lawyer. The employee got fired anyway. Everyone was surprised, including me. His faculty association launched a grievance, which is continuing, and until it is over, the public still cannot have access to the judge's report or her reasoning from the evidence presented. The not-guilty verdict displeased some people. They continued to attack. It was at this point that details of UBC's flawed process began to circulate, and the UBC Accountable letter came into being.

A fair-minded person would now withhold judgment as to guilt until the report and the evidence are available for us to see. We are grownups: We can make up our own minds, one way or the other. The signatories of the UBC Accountable letter have always taken this position. My critics have not, because they have already made up their minds. Are these Good Feminists fair-minded people? If not, they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.

A digression: Witch talk. Another point against me is that I compared the UBC proceedings to the Salem witchcraft trials, in which a person was guilty because accused, since the rules of evidence were such that you could not be found innocent. My Good Feminist accusers take exception to this comparison. They think I was comparing them to the teenaged Salem witchfinders and calling them hysterical little girls. I was alluding instead to the structure in place at the trials themselves.

There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.

This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.

Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.

The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.

If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. Fiction writers are particularly suspect because they write about human beings, and people are morally ambiguous. The aim of ideology is to eliminate ambiguity.

The UBC Accountable letter is also a symptom – a symptom of the failure of the University of British Columbia and its flawed process. This should have been a matter addressed by Canadian Civil Liberties or B.C. Civil Liberties. Maybe these organizations will now put up their hands. Since the letter has now become a censorship issue – with calls being made to erase the site and the many thoughtful words of its writers – perhaps PEN Canada, PEN International, CJFE and Index on Censorship may also have a view.

The letter said from the beginning that UBC failed accused and complainants both. I would add that it failed the taxpaying public, who fund UBC to the tune of $600-million a year. We would like to know how our money was spent in this instance. Donors to UBC – and it receives billions of dollars in private donations – also have a right to know.

In this whole affair, writers have been set against one another, especially since the letter was distorted by its attackers and vilified as a War on Women. But at this time, I call upon all – both the Good Feminists and the Bad Feminists like me – to drop their unproductive squabbling, join forces and direct the spotlight where it should have been all along – at UBC. Two of the ancillary complainants have now spoken out against UBC's process in this affair. For that, they should be thanked.

Once UBC has begun an independent inquiry into its own actions – such as the one conducted recently at Wilfrid Laurier University – and has pledged to make that inquiry public, the UBC Accountable site will have served its purpose. That purpose was never to squash women. Why have accountability and transparency been framed as antithetical to women's rights?

A war among women, as opposed to a war on women, is always pleasing to those who do not wish women well. This is a very important moment. I hope it will not be squandered

This is what I was talking about earlier, where second-wave types are getting uncomfortable with the #metoo movement because of the implications for the existing power structure. They'd rather keep their little slice of it than have the whole thing torn down.


What an idiotic interpretation. She can't disagree without being duplicitous? She hardly has form. Believe it or not it is possible for people to disagree with you without them being bad people.


Last edited by Santa on Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
pontifex wrote:
One final (or perhaps not) question. Supposing the gender revolution is successful, gender norms no longer exist, and, having dismantled hetero-normativity, we have a single normative principle which governs social relations informally - tolerance and implied absolute negative liberty - how might you replace informal, normative regulation of social relations, in order to secure safe interaction between imperfect humans and ensure that no individual's liberty is impeded?


I propose a combination of the panopticon of the internet and some new Puritanism as developed by a bunch of 25 year olds. That seems a better basis for a system of government than strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
One final (or perhaps not) question. Supposing the gender revolution is successful, gender norms no longer exist, and, having dismantled hetero-normativity, we have a single normative principle which governs social relations informally - tolerance and implied absolute negative liberty - how might you replace informal, normative regulation of social relations, in order to secure safe interaction between imperfect humans and ensure that no individual's liberty is impeded?


I propose a combination of the panopticon of the internet and some new Puritanism as developed by a bunch of 25 year olds. That seems a better basis for a system of government than strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.


The panopticon is a strangely underexposed idea. The level of psychological stress its implementation would create is inhuman. But alas, it will be (or arguably has been) implemented. And those who opt out will be excluded. And so we go like lambs to the slaughter. Sigh...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
pontifex wrote:
Santa wrote:
pontifex wrote:
One final (or perhaps not) question. Supposing the gender revolution is successful, gender norms no longer exist, and, having dismantled hetero-normativity, we have a single normative principle which governs social relations informally - tolerance and implied absolute negative liberty - how might you replace informal, normative regulation of social relations, in order to secure safe interaction between imperfect humans and ensure that no individual's liberty is impeded?


I propose a combination of the panopticon of the internet and some new Puritanism as developed by a bunch of 25 year olds. That seems a better basis for a system of government than strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.


The panopticon is a strangely underexposed idea. The level of psychological stress its implementation would create is inhuman. But alas, it will be (or arguably has been) implemented. And those who opt out will be excluded. And so we go like lambs to the slaughter. Sigh...


Weĺl it seems that humans can't be trusted to negotiate their own social relationships and work through the fuzzy boundaries and grey areas without being eternally traumatised. And so we need to things to be policed. Actually policed. There are echoes in there of a particular religious tradition but the name escapes me at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20562
Location: STRAYA CUNT
pontifex, fair bit to get through here, sorry it took me a while to reply. You write well, as always. Will try to take your questions one by one.

What do you propose will emerge from the efforts to tear everything down, all at once?
To be clear, I’m not proposing anything. I’m just trying to articulate some of the different strands of the #MeToo stuff - trying to explain why there’s been such a backlash to the OpEd pieces that have been popping up in the establishment papers by, largely, second wave feminists.

Do you believe that entire populations of nation-states will go along with this cultural revolution - and that is what you appear to be acknowledging, at least in this sphere - without resistance?
No, but I think this rising bunch of cultural zealots have a much better understanding of power and how to wield it than the liberals who have come before them. To draw a weak political analogy, look at how far right the Republicans have been able to drag the Democrats and the entire mainstream political discourse in the States. Similar stories across the West, but we might as well go straight to the heart of cultural hegemony. So no, I don’t think it will be without resistance, but I do think it will realign a bunch of social norms.

How important is political stability to you?
Reasonably? I’m not quite stupid enough to take it for granted, but I still think that a pretty decent shakeup wouldn’t be the worst thing for a lot of countries.

Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited?
I don’t think they are. The concentration of wealth, and power, is grotesquely concentrated. If we’re talking about the rise of reactionary groups organising on the ground, I’m not super worried. Like they always have, they’ll continue to be more interested in their own internal power struggles than whatever their cause of the day is. Having leaders who are often profoundly dumb doesn’t help either.

What will and should occur (if and) when they congeal into a more ahem coherent form than Trump?
I think establishment reactionaries - as noted above - are far more dangerous. If we’re talking about separate groups of reactionaries here then please feel free to correct me.

Do you believe that the revolution you appear to be proposing will 'win'?
Not proposing one, broadly sympathetic would probably be closer? I don’t see how it can win though. What would winning even mean? Feels all a bit zero-sum.

Would (you) be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices?
Absolutely. But I’m sure you’d agree that impatience and zealotry are crucial in getting revolutions off the ground. It’s the whole fierce urgency of now bit, my MLK reference for the day, organising ideas as old as time. What gets you into trouble down the line is when the zealots don’t get sidelined, and they think they’re still needed. In shocking news, we’re probably going to see this a bit differently - where I think that conservative voices should step forward, rather than stepping back and let radical reactionary groups fill the vacuum.

Do you accept that the cultural revolution you appear to support is inherently risky, that it may backfire?
Yes. Power, vacuums etc. etc. But I also think the idea of an exclusively cultural revolution is too reductive.

How might you replace informal, normative regulation of social relations, in order to secure safe interaction between imperfect humans and ensure that no individual's liberty is impeded?
Would you not say that what’s happening now? It’s just coming from a different base of power than that which has been propping up social norms as we’ve known them in the West over the last while. I think your fear about tolerance and absolute negative liberty is a bit overblown. I might be wrong, so please feel free to correct me, but you seem to get a bit apocalyptic in your thinking - although you’d probably say I’m being hopelessly naive.

Hopefully that helps clears some stuff up for you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
Another view from the NYT

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/o ... gle.co.uk/

Quote:
If you are wondering what about this evening constituted the “worst night” of Grace’s life, or why it is being framed as a #MeToo story by a feminist website, you probably feel as confused as Mr. Ansari did the next day. “It was fun meeting you last night,” he texted

“Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” she responded. “You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.” He replied with an apology.

Read Grace’s text message again.

Put in other words: I am angry that you weren’t able to read my mind.

It is worth carefully studying Grace’s story. Encoded in it are new yet deeply retrograde ideas about what constitutes consent — and what constitutes sexual violence.

We are told by the reporter that Grace “says she used verbal and nonverbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was.” She adds that “whether Ansari didn’t notice Grace’s reticence or knowingly ignored it is impossible for her to say.” We are told that “he wouldn’t let her move away from him,” in the encounter.

Yet Mr. Ansari, in a statement responding to Grace’s story, said that “by all indications” the encounter was “completely consensual.”

I am a proud feminist, and this is what I thought while reading Grace’s story:

If you are hanging out naked with a man, it’s safe to assume he is going to try to have sex with you.

If the inability to choose a pinot noir over a pinot grigio offends you, you can leave right then and there.

If you don’t like the way your date hustles through paying the check, you can say, “I’ve had a lovely evening and I’m going home now.”

If you go home with him and discover he’s a terrible kisser, say “I’m out.”

If you start to hook up and don’t like the way he smells or the way he talks (or doesn’t talk), end it.

If he pressures you to do something you don’t want to do, use a four-letter word, stand up on your two legs and walk out his door.

Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.

But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say: “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.


And there's an interesting link to some YouGov research. Look at the peecentagea of millenial aged people who think that asking someone for a drink is a form of sexual harassment.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphic ... y-chart-14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Dumbledore wrote:
pontifex, fair bit to get through here, sorry it took me a while to reply. You write well, as always. Will try to take your questions one by one.

What do you propose will emerge from the efforts to tear everything down, all at once?
To be clear, I’m not proposing anything. I’m just trying to articulate some of the different strands of the #MeToo stuff - trying to explain why there’s been such a backlash to the OpEd pieces that have been popping up in the establishment papers by, largely, second wave feminists.

Do you believe that entire populations of nation-states will go along with this cultural revolution - and that is what you appear to be acknowledging, at least in this sphere - without resistance?
No, but I think this rising bunch of cultural zealots have a much better understanding of power and how to wield it than the liberals who have come before them. To draw a weak political analogy, look at how far right the Republicans have been able to drag the Democrats and the entire mainstream political discourse in the States. Similar stories across the West, but we might as well go straight to the heart of cultural hegemony. So no, I don’t think it will be without resistance, but I do think it will realign a bunch of social norms.

How important is political stability to you?
Reasonably? I’m not quite stupid enough to take it for granted, but I still think that a pretty decent shakeup wouldn’t be the worst thing for a lot of countries.

Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited?
I don’t think they are. The concentration of wealth, and power, is grotesquely concentrated. If we’re talking about the rise of reactionary groups organising on the ground, I’m not super worried. Like they always have, they’ll continue to be more interested in their own internal power struggles than whatever their cause of the day is. Having leaders who are often profoundly dumb doesn’t help either.

What will and should occur (if and) when they congeal into a more ahem coherent form than Trump?
I think establishment reactionaries - as noted above - are far more dangerous. If we’re talking about separate groups of reactionaries here then please feel free to correct me.

Do you believe that the revolution you appear to be proposing will 'win'?
Not proposing one, broadly sympathetic would probably be closer? I don’t see how it can win though. What would winning even mean? Feels all a bit zero-sum.

Would (you) be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices?
Absolutely. But I’m sure you’d agree that impatience and zealotry are crucial in getting revolutions off the ground. It’s the whole fierce urgency of now bit, my MLK reference for the day, organising ideas as old as time. What gets you into trouble down the line is when the zealots don’t get sidelined, and they think they’re still needed. In shocking news, we’re probably going to see this a bit differently - where I think that conservative voices should step forward, rather than stepping back and let radical reactionary groups fill the vacuum.

Do you accept that the cultural revolution you appear to support is inherently risky, that it may backfire?
Yes. Power, vacuums etc. etc. But I also think the idea of an exclusively cultural revolution is too reductive.

How might you replace informal, normative regulation of social relations, in order to secure safe interaction between imperfect humans and ensure that no individual's liberty is impeded?
Would you not say that what’s happening now? It’s just coming from a different base of power than that which has been propping up social norms as we’ve known them in the West over the last while. I think your fear about tolerance and absolute negative liberty is a bit overblown. I might be wrong, so please feel free to correct me, but you seem to get a bit apocalyptic in your thinking - although you’d probably say I’m being hopelessly naive.

Hopefully that helps clears some stuff up for you?

So that's a very good faith response, cheers. I did expect that from you, though I don't expect it in general at this point. I may or may not respond in full tomorrow, but on the last point, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily apocalyptic, that's an unfair exaggeration. Pessimistic, obviously (though the panopticon suggested above is not apocalyptic by definition, just inhuman and deeply undesirable). I simply acknowledge that cleavages will almost always be resolved violently once they reach a certain point, after compromise becomes impossible, and I feel that we are approaching the point where people are no longer being reasonable about anything, and as you acknowledge, there is an impatient, revolutionary zeal in the air, which is resulting in an equally pungent reactionary zeal. I believe that the former is the cause of the latter, where you seem to see that in reverse.

At the same time, I wouldn't use the word naive to describe your position, though I suspected that you hadn't thought through the secondary effects of the revolution you sympathise with to their fullest, including potential negative reactions. I wouldn't say I'm convinced now, but I would say that I'm pessimistic by nature, and you may be optimistic by nature. Sometimes the pessimists are right, however, and the worse to worst case scenarios should be imagined in any effort to imagine the future. Utopia itself may, after all, have been a sly dystopia. That very interpretation may be where we differ, in fact.

So much of what we're all arguing about comes down to where we stand on human nature on a Hobbes vs Locke scale. The question of whether we are essentially at undeclared war, or essentially cooperative wasn't resolved then, it's not resolved now, and our bets of what the answer will be in the future could result in expensive losses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
One last question/comment. You're a reasonable dude, though I think it's fair to say that you tend, by your own admission, to the extremities on these particular issues. At the very least, you're sympathetic. But you're also not a dick. How confident can you be, imagining yourself as say, an example of a Snowball type figure, that Napoleon types won't seize the momentum (or that that hasn't already happened)? Would Snowball have gone along with Napoleon, had he known that he himself would be expelled, and that Boxer would be sent to the glue factory, or would he have attempted to stand up to Napoleon earlier? [/end dystopian novel references for now] I guess your answer may be that the farmer had to be taken down - and probably he did in that analogy - I'm just not sure the subsequent reality was better for any but a small group who reorganized hierarchies in their favour. The analogy is obviously imperfect, but how confident are you as - I believe - a 'white male', that you yourself will not be sent to the back of the bus, despite having been a loyal ally? Or do you accept that as a reasonable cost of supporting a just cause?

Thankfully, I'm too married to worry about an imposed MGTOW future. And my wife is wonderful so she'll never leave me/I'll never leave her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Quote:
Would (you) be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices?
Absolutely. But I’m sure you’d agree that impatience and zealotry are crucial in getting revolutions off the ground. It’s the whole fierce urgency of now bit, my MLK reference for the day, organising ideas as old as time. What gets you into trouble down the line is when the zealots don’t get sidelined, and they think they’re still needed. In shocking news, we’re probably going to see this a bit differently - where I think that conservative voices should step forward, rather than stepping back and let radical reactionary groups fill the vacuum.

I don't disagree at all. Or perhaps I see it inversely. I would say that moderate leftist voices need to step forward (along with moderate conservatives) and fend off the nutters on both sides. Unfortunately, being a moderate is the most risky position one could possibly take at this particular moment, since you're ignored if you make sense and shouted at if you step outside the Overton airhole.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Quote:
Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited?
I don’t think they are. The concentration of wealth, and power, is grotesquely concentrated. If we’re talking about the rise of reactionary groups organising on the ground, I’m not super worried. Like they always have, they’ll continue to be more interested in their own internal power struggles than whatever their cause of the day is. Having leaders who are often profoundly dumb doesn’t help either.

See, here, I think we disagree. It's true that there are wealth disparities which are quite extreme, but I think the reaction to the Trump phenomenon (in its entirety) is an indicator of where power lies. The left, probably the hard left, controls central institutions of cultural power - schools, universities, HR departments, Google (tech in general), and increasingly large sections of the media. I would argue that that's the true seat of power in shaping a society, if we ignore the nefarious world of finance and its hidden influence. It's true that the 90s left embraced neoliberalism, and that the left is now the neoliberal heartland (because it's cool - disruption and all that). But I would argue that populism is at heart a struggle against neoliberalism, although I don't support any of the current populist movements. I am a pre-90s Australian leftist at heart, but there is nothing remaining of that in the contemporary left (Australia's labour party remains better in regard to its connection to the working class, at least from a distance). There is almost no discussion of workers' rights, or anything at all universal really. Sustainability and environment are well and truly on the backburner politically. The left may have learnt division from the right (in the most recent past), but they have taken it to another level, and they do so while embracing a form of managerial neoliberalism which neglects almost entirely the fact that we are human individuals, not percentiles on a spreadsheet.

Interesting, anyway. I see what's happening as a failure of the left. And yes, they did move to the right on certain issues. Sowing division is no real compensation, though, even if the right, via Fox News, did it first. They should have been better, not copied and amplified it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20562
Location: STRAYA CUNT
pontifex wrote:
One last question/comment. You're a reasonable dude, though I think it's fair to say that you tend, by your own admission, to the extremities on these particular issues. At the very least, you're sympathetic. But you're also not a dick. How confident can you be, imagining yourself as say, an example of a Snowball type figure, that Napoleon types won't seize the momentum (or that that hasn't already happened)? Would Snowball have gone along with Napoleon, had he known that he himself would be expelled, and that Boxer would be sent to the glue factory, or would he have attempted to stand up to Napoleon earlier? [/end dystopian novel references for now] I guess your answer may be that the farmer had to be taken down - and probably he did in that analogy - I'm just not sure the subsequent reality was better for any but a small group who reorganized hierarchies in their favour. The analogy is obviously imperfect, but how confident are you as - I believe - a 'white male', that you yourself will not be sent to the back of the bus, despite having been a loyal ally? Or do you accept that as a reasonable cost of supporting a just cause?

Thankfully, I'm too married to worry about an imposed MGTOW future. And my wife is wonderful so she'll never leave me/I'll never leave her.

:lol: I'll take Snowball. I'm about to get married in a couple of weeks as well, and she's extremely ethnic so hopefully I should be safe when they're putting people up against the wall. Although I'm not sure whether that or a self-imposed MGTOW future would be worse tbh.

Working with that analogy, yes, the farmer had to be taken down. And then yes, the subsequent reality wasn't much better, but that's why you have to keep working at stuff. This is where Trotsky's continued revolution starts coming into things, have to keep it rolling. The premise of hierarchies is what we should be challenging, not the arranging of them - this is fundamentally the premise of the outrage against Atwood etc. recently. Broadly though, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The movement is far too widespread - and wide reaching - for any small group to concentrate and hold real actionable power that will do me much damage. I get the Panopticon idea, but I think that's far more a self-contained fear drummed up by internet communities than anything massive and real.

Going back a step to your previous point, I think we both see the present quite differently. You (seem to?) value its stability, and what pluralist liberal democracy has done for the world, whereas I'm looking at it and seeing a world sliding downhill. It's probably why you view the future pessimistically, where I'm more open to risking what we have now. I don't see how you can look at where things are now, catastrophic damage from climate change on the horizon, a sickening concentration of wealth, vast human misery across the planet, ever rising levels of mental illness etc. etc. and say that staying the course is the best option. What we've got going on at the moment isn't working. We're heading off a cliff, and I think we're going to need something pretty radical to turn it around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20562
Location: STRAYA CUNT
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited?
I don’t think they are. The concentration of wealth, and power, is grotesquely concentrated. If we’re talking about the rise of reactionary groups organising on the ground, I’m not super worried. Like they always have, they’ll continue to be more interested in their own internal power struggles than whatever their cause of the day is. Having leaders who are often profoundly dumb doesn’t help either.

See, here, I think we disagree. It's true that there are wealth disparities which are quite extreme, but I think the reaction to the Trump phenomenon (in its entirety) is an indicator of where power lies. The left, probably the hard left, controls central institutions of cultural power - schools, universities, HR departments, Google (tech in general), and increasingly large sections of the media. I would argue that that's the true seat of power in shaping a society, if we ignore the nefarious world of finance and its hidden influence. It's true that the 90s left embraced neoliberalism, and that the left is now the neoliberal heartland (because it's cool - disruption and all that). But I would argue that populism is at heart a struggle against neoliberalism, although I don't support any of the current populist movements. I am a pre-90s Australian leftist at heart, but there is nothing remaining of that in the contemporary left (Australia's labour party remains better in regard to its connection to the working class, at least from a distance). There is almost no discussion of workers' rights, or anything at all universal really. Sustainability and environment are well and truly on the backburner politically. The left may have learnt division from the right (in the most recent past), but they have taken it to another level, and they do so while embracing a form of managerial neoliberalism which neglects almost entirely the fact that we are human individuals, not percentiles on a spreadsheet.

Interesting, anyway. I see what's happening as a failure of the left. And yes, they did move to the right on certain issues. Sowing division is no real compensation, though, even if the right, via Fox News, did it first. They should have been better, not copied and amplified it.

How can you write off the influence of finance in a line? Capitalism as it exists today is the single most important factor shaping our society. Everything revolves around it. Politics, culture, the works. If you're seeing Silicone Valley as the hard left, then we're operating on totally different levels. Look at the influence Mercer and his lot were able to swing in the Trump election.

Huge amounts of the opposition to Trump is purely on respectability levels. Because he's rude, and a bit of a racist, and says dumb stuff, and isn't Presidential. It's Sorkin Liberalism cranked up to eleventy. It's like all of the frothing over Obama. Who gives a shit how many brown kids he killed with drones, or the record rates of deportations under his watch, the gross pursuit of whistleblowers, or any of the other scores of hideous things he oversaw? He was funny (unless you don't like uppity blacks) and had some good speech-writers so That's My President. Look at all of the absolute creeps writing for The Atlantic, the NYT etc. David Frum is now somehow a Good Guy? fudge me. You want a proper revolution, start with him. That'd be a nice first head to see rolling down the street.

See, I think neoliberalism ate the left - not the other way around. The weakness of the left is a far bigger problem for society than its strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17818
Dumbledore wrote:
How can you write off the influence of finance in a line? Capitalism as it exists today is the single most important factor shaping our society. Everything revolves around it. Politics, culture, the works. If you're seeing Silicone Valley as the hard left, then we're operating on totally different levels. Look at the influence Mercer and his lot were able to swing in the Trump election.

Huge amounts of the opposition to Trump is purely on respectability levels. Because he's rude, and a bit of a racist, and says dumb stuff, and isn't Presidential. It's Sorkin Liberalism cranked up to eleventy. It's like all of the frothing over Obama. Who gives a shit how many brown kids he killed with drones, or the record rates of deportations under his watch, the gross pursuit of whistleblowers, or any of the other scores of hideous things he oversaw? He was funny (unless you don't like uppity blacks) and had some good speech-writers so That's My President. Look at all of the absolute creeps writing for The Atlantic, the NYT etc. David Frum is now somehow a Good Guy? fudge me. You want a proper revolution, start with him. That'd be a nice first head to see rolling down the street.

See, I think neoliberalism ate the left - not the other way around. The weakness of the left is a far bigger problem for society than its strength.



Perfectly put. Very much the points I agree with about the state of politics on Trump and Obama.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Dumbledore wrote:
pontifex wrote:
One last question/comment. You're a reasonable dude, though I think it's fair to say that you tend, by your own admission, to the extremities on these particular issues. At the very least, you're sympathetic. But you're also not a dick. How confident can you be, imagining yourself as say, an example of a Snowball type figure, that Napoleon types won't seize the momentum (or that that hasn't already happened)? Would Snowball have gone along with Napoleon, had he known that he himself would be expelled, and that Boxer would be sent to the glue factory, or would he have attempted to stand up to Napoleon earlier? [/end dystopian novel references for now] I guess your answer may be that the farmer had to be taken down - and probably he did in that analogy - I'm just not sure the subsequent reality was better for any but a small group who reorganized hierarchies in their favour. The analogy is obviously imperfect, but how confident are you as - I believe - a 'white male', that you yourself will not be sent to the back of the bus, despite having been a loyal ally? Or do you accept that as a reasonable cost of supporting a just cause?

Thankfully, I'm too married to worry about an imposed MGTOW future. And my wife is wonderful so she'll never leave me/I'll never leave her.

:lol: I'll take Snowball. I'm about to get married in a couple of weeks as well, and she's extremely ethnic so hopefully I should be safe when they're putting people up against the wall. Although I'm not sure whether that or a self-imposed MGTOW future would be worse tbh.

Working with that analogy, yes, the farmer had to be taken down. And then yes, the subsequent reality wasn't much better, but that's why you have to keep working at stuff. This is where Trotsky's continued revolution starts coming into things, have to keep it rolling. The premise of hierarchies is what we should be challenging, not the arranging of them - this is fundamentally the premise of the outrage against Atwood etc. recently. Broadly though, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The movement is far too widespread - and wide reaching - for any small group to concentrate and hold real actionable power that will do me much damage. I get the Panopticon idea, but I think that's far more a self-contained fear drummed up by internet communities than anything massive and real.

Going back a step to your previous point, I think we both see the present quite differently. You (seem to?) value its stability, and what pluralist liberal democracy has done for the world, whereas I'm looking at it and seeing a world sliding downhill. It's probably why you view the future pessimistically, where I'm more open to risking what we have now. I don't see how you can look at where things are now, catastrophic damage from climate change on the horizon, a sickening concentration of wealth, vast human misery across the planet, ever rising levels of mental illness etc. etc. and say that staying the course is the best option. What we've got going on at the moment isn't working. We're heading off a cliff, and I think we're going to need something pretty radical to turn it around.

Ok. So I'm certainly interested in solving problems without considerable violent upheaval. Call me a (Burkean) conservative, do your worst. And I definitely believe in the soverignty of the people in terms of liberal democracy, and I don't want to substitute an unelected elite for a nominally elected one, corporate or state. Some of the concerns you have, I share - environmental overexploitation (to keep everyone watching onside) being one of the main ones. Onto a whole nother topic, I don't see some of the policies we're pursuing now - population growth in the developed world through migration for instance - as doing anything but exacerbating that. I find that loophole in the fabric of the contemporary leftist's mind frankly bizarre. Concerning vast human misery across the planet - 1) that's grossly nebulous and 2) I don't think that it's any worse- if we are talking about economic misery - than in the past (it's probably better, though the global disparities have grown), it's just that now actually seeing that's only a post on your facebook feed away. Concerning mental illness, I agree, though I would say that the various components of the culture war are driving that up, not down. Further entrenching division and encouraging everybody to find various isms under the bed won't help that.

Finally, I don't think the panopticon is a feverish dream of 'internet communities'. The panopticon is barely discussed, at least in those words - I was surprised to see someone else mention it. It's very much a reality, right now. We have never been surveilled as we are now, and laws are being loosened to allow more surveillance. Privacy is a thing of the past, or a luxury good, take your pick. The Chinese social credit rating model (a la Black Mirror) is only a matter of time, because frankly, nobody cares. The whole terrorism thing came just at the right moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12760
Location: XPAT CUNT
pontifex wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
This is what I was talking about earlier, where second-wave types are getting uncomfortable with the #metoo movement because of the implications for the existing power structure. They'd rather keep their little slice of it than have the whole thing torn down.

A frank, and if may say so, revealing, post. What do you propose will emerge from the efforts to tear everything down, all at once? Do you believe that entire populations of nation-states will go along with this cultural revolution - and that is what you appear to be acknowledging, at least in this sphere - without resistance? How important is political stability to you? Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited? What will and should occur (if and) when they congeal into a more ahem coherent form than Trump? Do you believe that the revolution you appear to be proposing will 'win'? I guess the final, and perhaps it should have been first, question would be whether or not you would be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices? Do you accept that the cultural revolution you appear to support is inherently risky, that it may backfire?


What a f**king bizzare post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Dumbledore wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Quote:
Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited?
I don’t think they are. The concentration of wealth, and power, is grotesquely concentrated. If we’re talking about the rise of reactionary groups organising on the ground, I’m not super worried. Like they always have, they’ll continue to be more interested in their own internal power struggles than whatever their cause of the day is. Having leaders who are often profoundly dumb doesn’t help either.

See, here, I think we disagree. It's true that there are wealth disparities which are quite extreme, but I think the reaction to the Trump phenomenon (in its entirety) is an indicator of where power lies. The left, probably the hard left, controls central institutions of cultural power - schools, universities, HR departments, Google (tech in general), and increasingly large sections of the media. I would argue that that's the true seat of power in shaping a society, if we ignore the nefarious world of finance and its hidden influence. It's true that the 90s left embraced neoliberalism, and that the left is now the neoliberal heartland (because it's cool - disruption and all that). But I would argue that populism is at heart a struggle against neoliberalism, although I don't support any of the current populist movements. I am a pre-90s Australian leftist at heart, but there is nothing remaining of that in the contemporary left (Australia's labour party remains better in regard to its connection to the working class, at least from a distance). There is almost no discussion of workers' rights, or anything at all universal really. Sustainability and environment are well and truly on the backburner politically. The left may have learnt division from the right (in the most recent past), but they have taken it to another level, and they do so while embracing a form of managerial neoliberalism which neglects almost entirely the fact that we are human individuals, not percentiles on a spreadsheet.

Interesting, anyway. I see what's happening as a failure of the left. And yes, they did move to the right on certain issues. Sowing division is no real compensation, though, even if the right, via Fox News, did it first. They should have been better, not copied and amplified it.

How can you write off the influence of finance in a line? Capitalism as it exists today is the single most important factor shaping our society. Everything revolves around it. Politics, culture, the works. If you're seeing Silicone Valley as the hard left, then we're operating on totally different levels. Look at the influence Mercer and his lot were able to swing in the Trump election.

Huge amounts of the opposition to Trump is purely on respectability levels. Because he's rude, and a bit of a racist, and says dumb stuff, and isn't Presidential. It's Sorkin Liberalism cranked up to eleventy. It's like all of the frothing over Obama. Who gives a shit how many brown kids he killed with drones, or the record rates of deportations under his watch, the gross pursuit of whistleblowers, or any of the other scores of hideous things he oversaw? He was funny (unless you don't like uppity blacks) and had some good speech-writers so That's My President. Look at all of the absolute creeps writing for The Atlantic, the NYT etc. David Frum is now somehow a Good Guy? fudge me. You want a proper revolution, start with him. That'd be a nice first head to see rolling down the street.

See, I think neoliberalism ate the left - not the other way around. The weakness of the left is a far bigger problem for society than its strength.

Have to go to bed. As far as finance goes, I said it's nefarious, not that it doesn't have an effect. Neither you nor I understand what the financial elites are doing, and probably neither do they. They certainly hold some power, and I'd like to see it dissolved. That said, it's not the only power in any given society, and free market ideology is in many ways very weak.

The second paragraph I don't really understand. I don't disagree about Trump, although I think you can read between the tweets to something understandable, from the perspective of a working class left out in the cold by neoliberalism. That takes a generous reading, and I accept that he doesn't encourage generosity, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I liked Obama a great deal, but I think he was a failure on many levels, and his greatest indictment was the fact that he was succeeded by Trump.

The third, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not sure who ate who, the result is the same. And since the left turned neoliberal, they had to distinguish themselves by creating new divisions or massively exaggerating old ones. Sanders was a more old-fashioned, universalist leftist, and he was largely rounded on when he failed to tow the line on identity politics. I'm not sure you can blame the right for that. I agree that the left is electorally weak, through poor decisions made a decade or more ago. The cultural revolution is not the way to a better, fairer world, but that's the way they chose, for political expedience, having abandoned universal humanism in favour of neoliberalism and identity politics.

Was a cordial exchange. Later.


Last edited by pontifex on Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2877
Zakar wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
This is what I was talking about earlier, where second-wave types are getting uncomfortable with the #metoo movement because of the implications for the existing power structure. They'd rather keep their little slice of it than have the whole thing torn down.

A frank, and if may say so, revealing, post. What do you propose will emerge from the efforts to tear everything down, all at once? Do you believe that entire populations of nation-states will go along with this cultural revolution - and that is what you appear to be acknowledging, at least in this sphere - without resistance? How important is political stability to you? Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited? What will and should occur (if and) when they congeal into a more ahem coherent form than Trump? Do you believe that the revolution you appear to be proposing will 'win'? I guess the final, and perhaps it should have been first, question would be whether or not you would be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices? Do you accept that the cultural revolution you appear to support is inherently risky, that it may backfire?


What a f**king bizzare post.

How so? Did you see the answers? I did think I may be going out on a limb. Turns out I wasn't. Was a perfectly nice exchange nevertheless. Turns out two reasonable people can disagree on a lot and not resort to insults. Cheers to Dumbledore for conversing in good faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
pontifex wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
pontifex wrote:
One last question/comment. You're a reasonable dude, though I think it's fair to say that you tend, by your own admission, to the extremities on these particular issues. At the very least, you're sympathetic. But you're also not a dick. How confident can you be, imagining yourself as say, an example of a Snowball type figure, that Napoleon types won't seize the momentum (or that that hasn't already happened)? Would Snowball have gone along with Napoleon, had he known that he himself would be expelled, and that Boxer would be sent to the glue factory, or would he have attempted to stand up to Napoleon earlier? [/end dystopian novel references for now] I guess your answer may be that the farmer had to be taken down - and probably he did in that analogy - I'm just not sure the subsequent reality was better for any but a small group who reorganized hierarchies in their favour. The analogy is obviously imperfect, but how confident are you as - I believe - a 'white male', that you yourself will not be sent to the back of the bus, despite having been a loyal ally? Or do you accept that as a reasonable cost of supporting a just cause?

Thankfully, I'm too married to worry about an imposed MGTOW future. And my wife is wonderful so she'll never leave me/I'll never leave her.

:lol: I'll take Snowball. I'm about to get married in a couple of weeks as well, and she's extremely ethnic so hopefully I should be safe when they're putting people up against the wall. Although I'm not sure whether that or a self-imposed MGTOW future would be worse tbh.

Working with that analogy, yes, the farmer had to be taken down. And then yes, the subsequent reality wasn't much better, but that's why you have to keep working at stuff. This is where Trotsky's continued revolution starts coming into things, have to keep it rolling. The premise of hierarchies is what we should be challenging, not the arranging of them - this is fundamentally the premise of the outrage against Atwood etc. recently. Broadly though, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The movement is far too widespread - and wide reaching - for any small group to concentrate and hold real actionable power that will do me much damage. I get the Panopticon idea, but I think that's far more a self-contained fear drummed up by internet communities than anything massive and real.

Going back a step to your previous point, I think we both see the present quite differently. You (seem to?) value its stability, and what pluralist liberal democracy has done for the world, whereas I'm looking at it and seeing a world sliding downhill. It's probably why you view the future pessimistically, where I'm more open to risking what we have now. I don't see how you can look at where things are now, catastrophic damage from climate change on the horizon, a sickening concentration of wealth, vast human misery across the planet, ever rising levels of mental illness etc. etc. and say that staying the course is the best option. What we've got going on at the moment isn't working. We're heading off a cliff, and I think we're going to need something pretty radical to turn it around.

Ok. So I'm certainly interested in solving problems without considerable violent upheaval. Call me a (Burkean) conservative, do your worst. And I definitely believe in the soverignty of the people in terms of liberal democracy, and I don't want to substitute an unelected elite for a nominally elected one, corporate or state. Some of the concerns you have, I share - environmental overexploitation (to keep everyone watching onside) being one of the main ones. Onto a whole nother topic, I don't see some of the policies we're pursuing now - population growth in the developed world through migration for instance - as doing anything but exacerbating that. I find that loophole in the fabric of the contemporary leftist's mind frankly bizarre. Concerning vast human misery across the planet - 1) that's grossly nebulous and 2) I don't think that it's any worse- if we are talking about economic misery - than in the past (it's probably better, though the global disparities have grown), it's just that now actually seeing that's only a post on your facebook feed away. Concerning mental illness, I agree, though I would say that the various components of the culture war are driving that up, not down. Further entrenching division and encouraging everybody to find various isms under the bed won't help that.

Finally, I don't think the panopticon is a feverish dream of 'internet communities'. The panopticon is barely discussed, at least in those words - I was surprised to see someone else mention it. It's very much a reality, right now. We have never been surveilled as we are now, and laws are being loosened to allow more surveillance. Privacy is a thing of the past, or a luxury good, take your pick. The Chinese social credit rating model (a la Black Mirror) is only a matter of time, because frankly, nobody cares. The whole terrorism thing came just at the right moment.


I don't think privacy is dead. The GDPR is a good stab at mitigating the impact of some new technologies and questionable new business practices.

Also I think the panopticon is much more distributed that Bentham or Foucault envisaged. It's not necessarily about exerting some centralised power (state, employers etc.). We surveille each other was more my point. Especially in matters like this. And the current consequences are way out if proportion to many misdemeanours. It is absolutely panopticanism though because it is a way of enforcing a particular set of behaviours and values.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12760
Location: XPAT CUNT
pontifex wrote:
Zakar wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
This is what I was talking about earlier, where second-wave types are getting uncomfortable with the #metoo movement because of the implications for the existing power structure. They'd rather keep their little slice of it than have the whole thing torn down.

A frank, and if may say so, revealing, post. What do you propose will emerge from the efforts to tear everything down, all at once? Do you believe that entire populations of nation-states will go along with this cultural revolution - and that is what you appear to be acknowledging, at least in this sphere - without resistance? How important is political stability to you? Do you expect reactionary forces to remain scattered and disunited? What will and should occur (if and) when they congeal into a more ahem coherent form than Trump? Do you believe that the revolution you appear to be proposing will 'win'? I guess the final, and perhaps it should have been first, question would be whether or not you would be prepared to acknowledge the role impatience, a form of uncompromising, puritanical fundamentalism, and aggressive zealotry may or may not be playing in sending people towards radical reactionary groups, in the absence of (or shouting down of) moderate, conservative (in the Burkean sense) voices? Do you accept that the cultural revolution you appear to support is inherently risky, that it may backfire?


What a f**king bizzare post.

How so? Did you see the answers? I did think I may be going out on a limb. Turns out I wasn't. Was a perfectly nice exchange nevertheless. Turns out two reasonable people can disagree on a lot and not resort to insults. Cheers to Dumbledore for conversing in good faith.


I honestly couldn't see how you could get from his post to yours, but turns out you were on the same wavelength. My bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
Dumbledore wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
Is it?

Your turn to take up Santa's Socratic questioning bit then?


Being criticised for Socratic questioning is about as devastating as being criticised for being interested in numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1180
green eyes wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
green eyes wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Andrew Sullivan the first man to come out and say this has gone too far.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... metoo.html

I suspect he has waited for the French women to break cover.


Deneuve and the French contingent are idiotic and don't understand what's happening if they really think this has anything to do with puritanism. Defending predators, abusers, and rapists is not a joke. Saying men should be free to "hit on" women. No, if you're both adults you can at least attempt to conduct yourself in a reasonable manner. We are not prey to be snared.

"Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or clumsily, is not ...* It depends how far that persistent clumsy abuse, and it is abuse when unwanted, goes. Unwanted attention is abuse, and when that unwanted attention is linked to whether you get a job or not, then it should be patently obvious that that is wrong on every level.

It's absolutely right for women and men who have had to experience that to speak out. The more that come forward, the more people will feel able to do so in all walks of life, because this isn't just a Hollywood problem, this happens every day, in every industry, on every street. Exposing the behaviour and the perpetrators, plus education, is the only way change will happen.

This group seem to have some very odd, and dangerous notions, seeing women as mere pawns, who just have to put up with attention from men because they presumably can't help/control themselves because they have been brought up by family and society to believe they are entitled to everything, including women's bodies. They are not.

A change is long overdue.


To pick up on your last point, my fear is that it will work the other way. Instead of viewing women as "mere pawns" this hysterical outrage over leg touching or clumsy come-ons has the effect of infantilising women. I thought the whole feminist movement was about women being equals, but now we want to protect them with strict Victorian morality.

Please don't take this to excuse Weinstein, Cosby or any of the monsters. But as Dave Chapelle says, if someone is jerking off while you are on the phone to them, you can always just hang up.



I really hope it doesn't and I don't think it will, because we won't allow that to happen. You say hysterical outrage...men have always liked to call us hysterical, THAT is infantilizing us, and this goes so far beyond groping, which is not acceptable unless both/all parties want it. Requiring 2 doctors to sanction an abortion...why? Because we are seen as too stupid and yes, hysterical and not in possession or either our faculties or our own bodies to make that decision for ourselves. The only response to a woman going to book a termination is "Yes madam, when would you like it" not trying to talk her out of it, not trying to push guilt, not judging, not pretending we are as dumb as amoeba.

The equal pay act finally passed in to law in 1970, I remember the posters up in my school. Do we have anything like equal pay nearly 50 years later? No. Because we are seen as less than men, pretty little things to be controlled by them, men being the "wage earners" well again no, times have changed, and without women working and the money they bring in, not too many families would be doing as well as they do.

Just a couple of examples of a whole raft of things that just drip drip away every single day, which reinforces me's position and attitudes, and even light and jokey "banter" is so often tinged to a greater or less extent with sexism, misogyny and that deep fear/hatred of women.

Having said that, things are considerably better than when I was a kid, but things move remarkably slowly, and often take great leaps backwards, as we now see with the rise of the far-right here and in the US, rolling back birth control programs/clinics etc.

I really hoped we would be much farther along by now, and that's why this is so important, as part of a wide-ranging examination of the underlying mistrust of anything without dangly bits which remains, maybe it's buried a bit deeper, but it's a long way from where we want to be.


just to give a bit of context, i think part of the reaction from Deneuve, Millet, Lahaie, that Iranian chick etc come from the form the #metoo movment had in France

the twitter campaign was "balance ton porc" litterally "snitch on your pig", and was launched by a journo named Muller. Now the facts are as follow, she was at a cocktail, pretty late night, a guy with whom she was not working or had no hierachic relations whatsoever hits on her, and quite vulgarly tells her "you're my kind of woman you have big boobs, i'm gonna make you come all night". And that was it, not touching, no insisatnce after she rejected him, full stop.
Now this woman Muller has given the name of this guy to the public, calling him her "bourreau" (literraly what we call nazis concentration camps guardians in France), and saying she was traumatised for 10 years by this, also implicitely equaling her experience with the one of the Weinstein victims... obviosuly the guy gets vilified, can't find any work, receives all sort of hate mail etc etc

pretty obvious that in the french context there wouold be a backlash, or at least a will to question the method and its implication on man/woman interaction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29112
pontifex wrote:
Atwood's an interesting one. She has gone through the process of imagining a world that reactionary forces might create in the wake of an attempted cultural revolution coalescing with other crises, and her imagined world looks more plausible now than it did when she wrote A Handmaid's Tale.


Except that she's noticing with horror that the fundamentalist forces are massing on her side of the fence.

If there has been any more ridiculous cultural event of the Trump era so far than the production of the 'Handmaid's Tale' as a dark reflection of Trump and his minions I am all ears. Trump is the force that kicked the GOP free from the Christian Conservatives. That movment is dead as a political force.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
panamax wrote:
green eyes wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
green eyes wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Andrew Sullivan the first man to come out and say this has gone too far.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... metoo.html

I suspect he has waited for the French women to break cover.


Deneuve and the French contingent are idiotic and don't understand what's happening if they really think this has anything to do with puritanism. Defending predators, abusers, and rapists is not a joke. Saying men should be free to "hit on" women. No, if you're both adults you can at least attempt to conduct yourself in a reasonable manner. We are not prey to be snared.

"Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or clumsily, is not ...* It depends how far that persistent clumsy abuse, and it is abuse when unwanted, goes. Unwanted attention is abuse, and when that unwanted attention is linked to whether you get a job or not, then it should be patently obvious that that is wrong on every level.

It's absolutely right for women and men who have had to experience that to speak out. The more that come forward, the more people will feel able to do so in all walks of life, because this isn't just a Hollywood problem, this happens every day, in every industry, on every street. Exposing the behaviour and the perpetrators, plus education, is the only way change will happen.

This group seem to have some very odd, and dangerous notions, seeing women as mere pawns, who just have to put up with attention from men because they presumably can't help/control themselves because they have been brought up by family and society to believe they are entitled to everything, including women's bodies. They are not.

A change is long overdue.


To pick up on your last point, my fear is that it will work the other way. Instead of viewing women as "mere pawns" this hysterical outrage over leg touching or clumsy come-ons has the effect of infantilising women. I thought the whole feminist movement was about women being equals, but now we want to protect them with strict Victorian morality.

Please don't take this to excuse Weinstein, Cosby or any of the monsters. But as Dave Chapelle says, if someone is jerking off while you are on the phone to them, you can always just hang up.



I really hope it doesn't and I don't think it will, because we won't allow that to happen. You say hysterical outrage...men have always liked to call us hysterical, THAT is infantilizing us, and this goes so far beyond groping, which is not acceptable unless both/all parties want it. Requiring 2 doctors to sanction an abortion...why? Because we are seen as too stupid and yes, hysterical and not in possession or either our faculties or our own bodies to make that decision for ourselves. The only response to a woman going to book a termination is "Yes madam, when would you like it" not trying to talk her out of it, not trying to push guilt, not judging, not pretending we are as dumb as amoeba.

The equal pay act finally passed in to law in 1970, I remember the posters up in my school. Do we have anything like equal pay nearly 50 years later? No. Because we are seen as less than men, pretty little things to be controlled by them, men being the "wage earners" well again no, times have changed, and without women working and the money they bring in, not too many families would be doing as well as they do.

Just a couple of examples of a whole raft of things that just drip drip away every single day, which reinforces me's position and attitudes, and even light and jokey "banter" is so often tinged to a greater or less extent with sexism, misogyny and that deep fear/hatred of women.

Having said that, things are considerably better than when I was a kid, but things move remarkably slowly, and often take great leaps backwards, as we now see with the rise of the far-right here and in the US, rolling back birth control programs/clinics etc.

I really hoped we would be much farther along by now, and that's why this is so important, as part of a wide-ranging examination of the underlying mistrust of anything without dangly bits which remains, maybe it's buried a bit deeper, but it's a long way from where we want to be.


just to give a bit of context, i think part of the reaction from Deneuve, Millet, Lahaie, that Iranian chick etc come from the form the #metoo movment had in France

the twitter campaign was "balance ton porc" litterally "snitch on your pig", and was launched by a journo named Muller. Now the facts are as follow, she was at a cocktail, pretty late night, a guy with whom she was not working or had no hierachic relations whatsoever hits on her, and quite vulgarly tells her "you're my kind of woman you have big boobs, i'm gonna make you come all night". And that was it, not touching, no insisatnce after she rejected him, full stop.
Now this woman Muller has given the name of this guy to the public, calling him her "bourreau" (literraly what we call nazis concentration camps guardians in France), and saying she was traumatised for 10 years by this, also implicitely equaling her experience with the one of the Weinstein victims... obviosuly the guy gets vilified, can't find any work, receives all sort of hate mail etc etc

pretty obvious that in the french context there wouold be a backlash, or at least a will to question the method and its implication on man/woman interaction


Interesting. Atwood has some good thoughts on that kind of approach, which is the same approach as with Aziz at al. If the motivation for the public shaming is the failure of the legal system to deal with sexual crimes it seems a cackhanded and ill conceived way to go about it. If the legal system (at least on this point) needs to be torn down what will it be replaced with? For all its flaws the legal system at least tries to maintain a balance of rights and contains within it an ability to rebalance where necessary/possible. It seems to me that the proper way to address problems is to find better ways of getting or assessing evidence.


Last edited by Santa on Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5383
Seneca of the Night wrote:
pontifex wrote:
Atwood's an interesting one. She has gone through the process of imagining a world that reactionary forces might create in the wake of an attempted cultural revolution coalescing with other crises, and her imagined world looks more plausible now than it did when she wrote A Handmaid's Tale.


Except that she's noticing with horror that the fundamentalist forces are massing on her side of the fence.

If there has been any more ridiculous cultural event of the Trump era so far than the production of the 'Handmaid's Tale' as a dark reflection of Trump and his minions I am all ears. Trump is the force that kicked the GOP free from the Christian Conservatives. That movment is dead as a political force.


Oh yeah. I have been following that one (Trump=Handmaids Tale) with growing perplexion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1692 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: backrow, Botha Boy, camroc1, Cartman, Chips, cola cube, danthefan, de_Selby, DraadkarD, feckwanker, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, Homer, Jensrsa, Keith, Liathroidigloine, Lorthern Nights, Oxbow, P in VG, Plato'sCave, Poshprop, Raggs, Seez, shereblue, Shrekles, SickeninglyArrogantPerson, Steamin Beamin, sunnybanana, TheFrog, Witchfinder General, Yer Man and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group