30
15
Hinduism doesn't exist (web.archive.org)
1

The idea that I’m referring to is basically that MRAs/pick-up artists and anti-abortion social conservatives are the same group of people with no meaningful distinctions between them.

An example of where I’ve seen this idea expressed:

You know those left-leaning meta subreddits like r/therightcantmeme and r/shitfascistssay that are largely about posting dumb right-wing stuff and then dogpiling on it together?

Earlier this year I saw a post (now deleted) on one of those subreddits where the content of the post was a manosphere-type meme that depicted a (attractive) man who got his (attractive) girlfriend pregnant and then, with help from his male friends, fled the country so that he wouldn’t have to pay child support. And the general tenor of the meme was supportive of this; basically the conceit was “being hot and scoring lots of noncommittal sex with hot women, without any concern for their well-being, is all that matters”.

Obviously this is an offensively terrible way to think about women, so the post got a lot of interaction and comments. But some of the comments caught my attention, because they tied in anti-abortion politics in a way that I think is kind of off the mark. One commenter said “The same guys who are anti abortion are the guys who laugh at stuff like this” and got a lot of upvotes.

I replied to them with something like “Huh? No, I don’t think that’s accurate. This is not a meme that anti-abortion social conservatives would find funny. This is a meme for ‘players’ who are misogynist in a lot of other ways, but generally support legal abortion.”

My comment got heavily downvoted. There were a couple of people who agreed with me and replied things like “lol you’re getting downvoted but you’re exactly right”, but those people got downvoted too.

Overall it seemed like the vast majority of people in that comment section disagreed with me, and believed that there really is no significant difference between anti-abortion Christian social conservatives and the MRA/PUA/Andrew Tate crowd.

I still think I'm right about this, though. What are your thoughts?

1

I think I understand the reactionary critique of democracy fairly well. It basically consists of the following:

  • democracy is over-sanctified as a theoretical concept/ideal, and is a sham as it has actually been practiced
  • It's impossible for large complex societies to be horizontally organized; they'll always be hierarchical, and the people at the top will never be entirely accountable to the people at the bottom. There will always be an elite.
  • The reason that some countries are richer and more prosperous than others isn't because they're more democratic, it's because (a) they have better institutions regarding private property & rule of law, or (b) they just have more human capital
  • some people are just morally/intellectually better than others and deserve to have more political power (e.g. right-wingers on Twitter, such as Matt Walsh, who say things like "you should have to pass a civics test in order to vote" or "voting should be restricted to people above a certain IQ/net worth")

However, I do not feel like I understand the Marxist critique of democracy very well. I know that leftist/Marxist skepticism of democracy (or at least liberal democracy) exists, but I don't really feel like I know what the full argument is. All I know currently is that I've observed internet leftists make various small individual assertions about democracy that, although I think they're mostly true, don't really come together to form a complete vision, and sometimes even contradict each other. These various assertions include the following:

  • The US claims to be a democracy but is really more of an oligarchy
  • the US was never a democracy
  • bourgeois democracy can never be authentically democratic
  • liberal democracy is really just colonial herrenvolk democracy and is too historically related to colonization to exist without it
  • the bourgeois revolutions of the Enlightenment era were overrated
  • democracy is kind of oversanctified and unachievable, and has really been turned into part of the liberal civic religion in Western countries; large societies are never really democratic (this is basically agreeing with the reactionary critique that I described above, at least parts of it)
  • Democracy metrics/indices such as this one are basically just meaningless, contrived Western propaganda. It's impossible to know whether any country is really more democratic than any other one.
  • China, Cuba, North Korea, Syria (maybe?), Russia (maybe?), and Iran (maybe?) are democratic, and so was the Soviet Union; they just have/had different democratic processes that seem strange and illegitimate to Westerners because of propaganda & cultural gaps.

I think all of the above are true or possibly true, but it seems unclear what's actually being argued for here. In particular, it seems like sometimes the argument being made is "democracy is good and worthwhile, but Western countries aren't really democratic", and other times the argument is "actually democracy is an illusion and not worth aspiring to in the first place".

I feel like I'm missing something here. Can anyone enlighten me? Is there a good text that makes this clear? (I'd prefer something short, like 2,000 words or so, but if you know a book that's relevant you can recommend that as well.)

1

Like yeah, we all know that communism defeated fascism in WWII, but that was only after a lot of war & genocide had already transpired.

I'm interested in the counterfactual, in which it never got to that point because the Nazis and Italian fascists were prevented from ever acquiring power to begin with. What would that have looked like? What would have been needed for that to happen?

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 18 points 3 months ago

Yeah you're right. Furthermore, the graph that they show for "Did Joe Biden drop out" isn't even in absolute units, so we can't actually tell how many people are making this query. They normalize it so that the maximum is always represented by 100, but that still might only be like <1000 people.

13

So about the CW: this author is an Israeli neoreactionary, a "race realist", and a seeming Ashkenazi supremacist. I am not looking to downplay that, and I am posting this with some caution. (In particular, there is a racist barb in this article against Candace Owens and Kanye West.)

Having said that, they are also fairly knowledgeable about Jewish history, including Zionism, antisemitism, the Holocaust, etc. and as far as I can tell they are relatively intellectually honest about these things - certainly more intellectually honest than the Israeli goverment's propaganda vessels, or pro-Israel American politicians, etc. I'd be lying if I said I haven't learned anything from reading this guy's stuff.

In addition to the article linked above, they also wrote two follow-up posts:

Antisemitism as the Resting State of the Far Right

Wrapping things up on antisemitism

The last article, if you can look past the predictable communist-bashing stuff, includes a point that I think is fairly useful and important:

There is a stupid belief common to both antisemites and the antisemitism industry, which is that America, and white countries in general, are always one step away from breaking out into antisemitism... In the 1930 Federal German election, the NSDAP won 107 out of 557 seats, so any German Jew under the impression that everything was hunky dory on the antisemitism front must have been on some pretty strong opium. More than that, though, there had been explicitly antisemitic parties, including ones that had antisemitism in their name, in the German parliament for 50 years. Hell, the German Conservative party officially included antisemitism in its electoral programme in 1892. The idea that one day ‘for no reason at all’ Germans became antisemitic and elected the Nazis has literally no basis in fact at all; it was the product of nearly a century of dedicated propaganda.

This is the kind of stupidity that comes from seeing antisemitism as a ‘virus’ rather than an ideology. You could get a virus at any moment; you might get Covid tomorrow and be bedridden for literally minutes. Ideologies aren’t like that though. How likely is it that Libertarians will take over America three years from now? Not very, but they have had a party getting 2 or 3% in elections for decades and a whole nonprofit ecosystem promoting their beliefs. Do antisemites have that? So what are you even talking about?

26

It's pretty interesting, and definitely useful for dispelling the common notion of him in the West as merely a crazy, violent, Jew-hating religious nutcase.

A lot of good stuff, but I'd say this is the money quote:

What was [the occupation's] purpose? Raising killers? Have you watched the video where a soldier shoots at us as if we were bowling pins? And he laughs, laughs. They (the Jewish people) were people like Freud, Einstein, Kafka. Experts of maths and philosophy. Now they are experts of drones, of extrajudicial executions.

13
Has anybody read this book? (wp.production.patheos.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by join_the_iww@hexbear.net to c/books@lemmy.ml

If so, what did you think of it?

I'm curious about it, but I have too much other stuff I want to read first.

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 56 points 4 months ago

so this is it, right? We're, like, definitely in WW3 now?

been thinking about this a lot this morning.

12
43
141
Yeah I read theory (m.media-amazon.com)
27
[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 35 points 9 months ago

Free Palestine

(Bum-Bum-Bum)

From the river to the sea

THE SEA

THE SEA

ba-da-ba-da-ba

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 10 points 9 months ago

to be fair, how do we know that that isn’t also because of subsidies?

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

An abortion is when the doctor yanks the 36-week fetus out by its umbilical cord and then whips it against the table a bunch of times to kill it

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Civil Rights Corps is way better

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

Ehh. I don't think private equity is the main issue. I think that private equity firms would prefer to fund the construction of new housing if they could, but they can't, because of zoning laws. So they opt for the next best thing which is buying up existing housing stock and renting it.

The crux of the problem is zoning laws, single-family zoning in particular. We either need to allow a bunch of undeveloped land to be developed, or we need to allow already-developed land to be converted into more dense forms of housing. I think the latter option is preferable.

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

Same. I have to give up and use Chrome to open it.

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

Man we really need to just get rid of districts and do proportional representation. This is such bullshit and it keeps happening.

[-] join_the_iww@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The author provided a summary version in footnote 1.

If you'd like an even shorter version, I am working on a bullet list and will update this comment soon.

EDIT: here you go. I think I've summarized pretty well the main points and arguments of the article:

  • The open letter released on August 18th 2021, cosigned by Lyta Gold, Allegra Silcox, and three others, was misleading or dishonest about numerous things. Particularly, it stated that Nathan J Robinson (hereon referred to as NJR) had "fired" them when he had actually asked them to resign. This is an important difference. He did not have the authority to fire them, and he had not attempted to.
  • Lyta Gold and the others affected led the public to believe that their financial situations were a lot less secure than they actually were. Yasmin Nair makes a compelling case that by August 18th when they published the open letter, they almost certainly knew they would be getting significant severance. Despite this, they created a donation drive on Cash App (and later Venmo as well) under a false pretext.
    • Per the article:
      • In a response dated August 13, Robinson, by now massively regretful and apologetic for how he had responded, heartily agreed with the idea of a year’s severance and also went beyond their proposal with a larger sum amounting to $234,352. There is no indication, in either the correspondence or even the statements by the department staff or the board, that he resisted any of the proposals. Since it was unlikely the magazine could pay out such an enormous sum, he said he would pay for the difference out of his own pocket, by any means possible—even if it meant paying in instalments.

      • Robinson never resisted any of the staff’s demands, and in fact offered them more than they asked for (though it was not in his power to do that, and the board had control and did not accept his offer of a large sum to be paid out over a one-year instalment)

      • In the end, including August and September payrolls, the magazine paid out $76,014, divided among seven people . This amounted to five months’ salary for most (and as we’ve seen, money was given out to people who were not even part of the staff).

  • One point of tension leading up to the events of August 2021 was disagreement over which candidate to hire for the role of Online Editor. The final two candidates were Lily Sanchez and Sam DeLucia. NJR preferred Lily Sanchez, while some other people at Current Affairs (particularly Allegra Silcox) preferred DeLucia. At one point in the hiring process (slighly earlier actually, when there were were still four remaining candidates), Lily Sanchez asked the hiring team a clarifying question about an editing test assignment that was a step in the hiring process (clarifying questions were allowed). NJR answered her question, in an email that was also visible to the rest of the hiring team. After August 18th, Adrian Rennix recounted this event in a dishonest way that would lead the public to believe that NJR gave Lily Sanchez special and unsolicited advice because she was his preferred candidate and he wanted to get her in by any means possible, even unfair ones.
    • Eventually Lily Sanchez did end up being selected for the role, by a majority vote. After Sanchez was hired, some of the people who had preferred Sam DeLucia were unhappy and unprofessional about it, and looked for a way to bring on DeLucia anyway. In a virtual meeting that included the newly hired Lily Sanchez as an attendee, Allegra Silcox stated that “We need to bring Sam on basically as soon as we can because as far as we know, we love her and we want to give her work, bring her in full-time.” Yasmin Nair correctly states that being this overeager to hire a runner-up alongside the person who actually got the job "sets the stage for terrible office dynamics."
  • The people who had been asked to resign led the public to believe that NJR had done so because they had been trying to restructure the magazine as a worker co-op. This is questionable at best. A better way to describe the situation is that restructuring as a worker co-op was one of numerous ideas that were suggested to deal with two problems: that (a) Current Affairs was dysfunctional in numerous ways, and needed more structure and better-defined roles just for practical business reasons, and (B) it would be desirable for Current Affairs to be structured in a more egalitarian way as well. There was wide agreement that both of these issues existed and needed to be resolved, but converting CA to a co-op was only one suggested solution, and it was still only being discussed loosely and hypothetically. Certainly no formal demands had been made in regards to forming a worker co-op.
    • NJR was opposed to the worker co-op idea. His stated explanation for this is that he preferred the idea of converting CA to a registered nonprofit, without any owners. However, this idea ran into problems because nonprofits are prohibited from making political endorsements, and are legally constrained in their political commentary in other ways as well. Current Affairs' website presently acknowledges this in its explanation for being a C-Corp.
    • One of the main proponents of the worker co-op idea was Allegra Silcox, and she also was a proponent of converting CA into a for-profit organization as well. It is possible that NJR's opposition to the worker co-op suggestion was partly because it seemed to be joined with converting it to a for-profit as well.
    • Some media accounts described all of this in an even more inaccurate way, that they had been asked to resign because they tried to unionize the workplace. This was never true, there was never a unionization effort, and unions are not the same thing as worker co-ops.
    • Just as a note, at the time this happened, Current Affairs was collectively owned at the time by its board of directors, which consisted of NJR, Lyta Gold, Adrian Rennix, and three other people who had contributed significantly to the magazine.
      • One of the problems with the magazine's management was arguably that the board of directors overlapped too much with the editors and contributors of the magazine.
      • Also, Yasmin Nair describes that the board of directors was rather inactive and did not operate with the same rigor as a typical company board of directors. Quote: "minutes were never taken, and meetings were sporadic"
  • One of the people whose resignations NJR requested, Kate Gauthreaux, really was just bad at her job and even complained that it was boring. Allegra Silcox tried to create a new role for Gauthreaux that would be more enjoyable for her, but this raised the question of who else would do the administrative work for which Gauthreaux was initially hired.
view more: next ›

join_the_iww

joined 4 years ago