Categories
#gamergate #NotYourShield 4chan alt-lite candace owens crackpottery crank magnetism doxing drama none dare call it conspiracy playing the victim racism red pill red pill women twitter zoe quinn

From the Archives: Candace Owens meets Gamergate — and things get weird

Candace Owens: Has a thing for terrible dudes

The Spring 2018 WHTM pledge drive will be wrapping up soon — and we’re still a ways short of what I need to get in order to make the site ad free! Please donate what you can! Thanks! 

By David Futrelle

Candace Owens — self-proclaimed “Red Pill Black” conservative — is having a bit of a moment, hanging out with new Trump fan Kanye West, posing for selfies with Don Jr., getting an effusive Twitter shout-out from Don Sr,, threatening to sue people who talk about her in what she considers the wrong way.

A lot of people have been left wondering just where exactly Owens came from. Well, there’s a bit of a story there.

Long-time readers of this blog first met Owens back in the days of Gamergate, after Zoe Quinn criticized her ill-conceived plan for an “anti-bullying” site that would have basically doxed a bunch of teenagers. After Quinn spoke out, Gamergaters spouting conspiracy theories quickly abandoned their own critiques of Owens and  rallied around her. Owens began spouting conspiracy theories of her own, and, well, let’s just say things got very weird very fast, as they generally seem to do when Owens gets involved in anything.

In several posts, I tried my best to make sense of the whole surreal mess. I’m linking them here because I think they may illuminate a few things about Trump World’s newest heroine.

Social Autopsy founder Candace Owens channels GamerGate in bizarre attack on Zoe Quinn (APRIL 20, 2016)

This post describes what happened immediately after Owens first heard from Quinn. Trust me, the headline (and the snippet from the post below) don’t fully capture the weirdness of the story.

Instead of listening to Quinn, Owens declared war on her, spewing forth dozens of angry and accusatory tweets, charging that Quinn and fellow anti-harassment activist Randi Harper … were somehow the puppetmasters behind a barrage of abusive, threatening, and often blatantly racist anonymous messages that Owens (who is black) started getting not long after news of Owens’ plans hit Reddit and 4chan.

Owens quickly began to sound like every other internet crackpot who sees conspiracies in every Twitter mention.

SocialAutopsy-Turvy: Candace Owens’ Twitter Trainwreck, Part One
 (APRIL 24, 2016)

And quite a trainwreck it was. The story continued to get weirder, and at such a pace that I never had a chance to write part two.

In furious post, SocialAutopsy’s Candace Owens attacks a WashPo story that isn’t there APRIL 25, 2016

In this episode, Owens writes an angry diatribe against an article she imagined that Washington Post writer Caitlin Dewey had written about her. No, really. She accused Dewey and her editor of attempting to libel her in an article that the Post never published and that as far as I know Dewey never even wrote.

Giddy Gamergater: Will Candace Owens show the world that we’ve been right all along? (APRIL 28, 2016)

Naturally, Gamergaters were thrilled to have such an, er, original thinker on their side.

NOTE TO READERS: Sorry for being MIA the last couple of days; I’ve been dealing with the double whammy of migraines and some really nasty lower back pain. Doing a little better today.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

254 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
3 years ago

@Fishy Goat:
A bit overdue, and sad that likely the impetus for this was the recent van attack in Toronto.

Canadians may be better than the U.S. on a lot of these issues (and that’s a definite may), but we’re nowhere near immune, have lots of our own rather sordid history, and have mostly let a certain unwillingness to rock the boat sweep a number of such issues under the rug.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

@ Katamount:

Amazingly well-put, thanx!

… it takes more than just pointing out historical ignorance or wrongdoing. They’ve gotta be hammered into the ground and then the ground has to be salted. These people have to be reduced to gibbering, stuttering, humiliated weaklings in front of their audience if historical fact and truth are ever going to win out.

Conservative talking points have a built-in advantage in an age of sound bytes, as their talking points are almost universally one-liners… not comedy, just one-line…ers. As in god created the heavens and the earth in six days. Period. End of argument. Try explaining the Big Bang Theory in such brevity. Conservative talking points never require evidence, because anything can be proven by saying “everybody knows” (which actually means “everybody who is important already believes”).

In light of this, it’s incumbent upon us to rise to the occasion and not only tell the truth, but tell it in a way that sticks in people’s memory.

We need a medium which can inform and motivate…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLc5QJsMgvw

on the album Rattle And Hum, when Bono does a live version of Bob Dylan’s All along the watchtower…, one of the lines he sings on it goes, “All I need is my red guitar, three chords and the truth…”

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
3 years ago

@Jenora Feuer Agree with you 1000%. Too many people doing the smug ‘Canada is so much better!’ nonsense.

Robert Walker-Smith
Robert Walker-Smith
3 years ago

Weird Eddie – Jordan Peterson’s fanboys are an interesting exception to the soundbite rule. I’ve been slinking around the subReddit, and one of their usual responses to requests for clarification on a contentious point is ‘oh, you have to listen to/read the entire thing to understand’. I am not going to listen to a two hour conversation between Peterson and Camille Paglia unless there are cash and prizes at the end. I’m not sure if it’s a conscious act or a carryover from his academic training, but Peterson has a tendency to make allusive statements that require extensive exegesis. One of his twelve rules is ‘rescue your father from the underworld’, which has nothing to do with fathers or the underworld. He’s trying for poetic terseness and lands in gnomic obscurantism.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

two hour conversation between Peterson and Camille Paglia

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/monkey.gif

ChimericMind
ChimericMind
3 years ago

On the subject of that foolish individual’s parody of “This is America”, I loved Seanbaby’s counter-mocking:

https://twitter.com/Seanbabydotcom

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@Robert:

One of his twelve rules is ‘rescue your father from the underworld’, which has nothing to do with fathers or the underworld.

Something to do with the classic literary structure of the “Hero’s Journey”?

Moon Custafer
Moon Custafer
3 years ago

Don’t people usually rescue (or try to rescue) their spouses from the Underworld?

PeeVee the Tired
PeeVee the Tired
3 years ago

ChimericMind, Seanbaby will *always* have a place in my heart.

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

Don’t people usually rescue (or try to rescue) their spouses from the Underworld?

Well, yeah, but Peterson’s audience probably wouldn’t react well to being told they should go through significant hardship to rescue a “female” (because let’s face it, Peterson would never have anything but a wife being rescued from the underworld), even if it’s just a metaphor for some other bland self-help instruction.

Fabe
Fabe
3 years ago

@Jenora Feuer Agree with you 1000%. Too many people doing the smug ‘Canada is so much better!’ nonsense.

yeah if thing were so great and perfect here we won’t have a group like ‘ID-canada’

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

Good news, fellow Ontarians: the NDP seems have overtaken the Liberals and now is rapidly closing on the Tories, whose poll numbers seem to be showing signs of sagging.

Robert Walker-Smith
Robert Walker-Smith
3 years ago

I’ve been following Seanbaby for years! Nice to see a shout out here.

FWIW, the final Peterson rule is ‘pet any cat you meet on the street’. Assuming that is not code for something abtruse, it’s contrary to experience; every cat I’ve met on the street has been uninterested in pets from random humans. That’s actually one of the things I find appealing about them.

idli sambar
idli sambar
3 years ago

Also your weird fixation with bashing Hinduism

Quote me? I never even mentioned Hinduism.

It doesn’t matter and it’s none of anyone’s business but I’m Blasian from a primarily Hindu religious background but practice a blend of Hinduism and Buddhism personally.

Dalillama
Dalillama
3 years ago

I’ve met loads of cats that wanted scritches from anyone passing by, personally.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@Dalillama:

Me, too, but also lots who are shy around strangers.

cornychips
cornychips
3 years ago

Re cats

I’m at a rural Airbnb atm and the bf has befriended many of the cats. Hes not even a cat person. But apparently he gives the most amazing scritches. I love kitties but my allergies dont. So I “befriend” the wild chickens instead. Haha

And good grief, that nicole arbors “this is america” parody video is so fucking tonedeaf. Uuuugh White Feminists. It took me about 3 seconds to start cringing. It was embarrassing to watch.

Moggie
Moggie
3 years ago

There used to be a cat locally who like stranger-scritches so much that s/he sat in the middle of the footpath, the better to get their attention. And another who usually sat on a wall beside the footpath, and administered headbonks to friendly strangers.

idli sambar
idli sambar
3 years ago

“Saw that on the Wichita news channel… as conservative as that commentator is, I was surprised they weren’t mourning the law making it illegal!!!”

Don’t conservatives want people to “just say no” to sex outside marriage? Wouldn’t they mourn the sexual libertinism of “our boys in blue” having sex with anyone they’re not married to?

Gijoel
Gijoel
3 years ago
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
3 years ago

Me, worried because my cat hasn’t pooped in almost two days: “Are you feeling okay, buddy?”

My cat, answering the question like only a cat can: “*farts healthily*”

So that’ll be a “Yes,” then.

Moggie
Moggie
3 years ago

Gijoel:

So Milo and Alex Jones have been busy.

Ahahahah! Firstly, I don’t think you can really “storm” an office with only two people. Secondly, check out the Milo fans in the comments being offended by the tone of the article. (Apparently he does still have fans, though I’d guess that’s a dwindling group).

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago
Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

Quote me? I never even mentioned Hinduism.

Do you mean that you never mentioned Hinduism in this thread? Because that would be correct. But I can access the archives, you know. I remember this thread.

https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/05/02/mgtow-creepos-wonder-does-feminism-promote-bestiality/comment-page-1/#comment-2095794

I also remember the weird necro post you made which was deleted by David for being needlessly inflammatory about Hinduism, though since it was a necro post, I cannot easily find the thread yet.

Or are you and Idli Sambar Revolution not the same person?

You are correct that your background is no one’s business, though, and I was wrong to bring it up.

Katamount
Katamount
3 years ago

@Robert Walker-Smith

Jordan Peterson’s fanboys are an interesting exception to the soundbite rule. I’ve been slinking around the subReddit, and one of their usual responses to requests for clarification on a contentious point is ‘oh, you have to listen to/read the entire thing to understand’.

That’s how it goes with most pseudo-intellectuals: bury people in jargon and “isms”, but with just enough bread crumbs to reach a trite truism. It’s the Deepak Chopra SOP. I’d ask the Petersonite troll to sum it up for me, see if he actually understood it (read: no way in hell).

Sometimes I’m torn about so much digital attention being devoted to this jackass, but Peterson really does completely represent the faux-intellectual at its basest form and his bullshit needs to be ripped to shreds everywhere his ugly mug goes, or his douchebro followers are just going to multiply.

Saw this Sam Seder clip this morning and he nailed something that I’ve been seeing in corners of YouTube and the internet essentially since Elevatorgate:

This is the stance of a lot of the YouTube atheist crowd as well. Here’s how it goes: “Religion is made up and stupid. The religious are just sheep following a herd. Therefore being a freethinking individualist is the ultimate virtue. But wait, suddenly a bunch of loud activist groups have confronted me with uncomfortable truths? Worse yet, I’m being called to action because of my race/gender/sexual orientation? Why you picking on me? I’m a freethinking individualist, not a cog in the white patriarchy! Clearly you people are sheeple following a herd and are out to make me feel guilty, but your herd is ‘identity politics’ instead of Jesus or Muhammad! Donald Trump is a loud buffoon as well, so clearly his followers are also playing identity politics. And with both sides screaming at the same volume, clearly the only rational answer lies between them, where I, the freethinking individualist sit and can smugly ! QED.”

This is EXACTLY what people like ArmouredSkeptic, ShoeOnHead, Carl of Benjamin and all the rebranded former GamerGaters believe too. They will be the first to tell you:

They actually extend it to any ideology at all. If you organize your principles under any banner or label, that makes you a sheeple according to these privileged dillholes.

@Surplus

Good news, fellow Ontarians: the NDP seems have overtaken the Liberals and now is rapidly closing on the Tories, whose poll numbers seem to be showing signs of sagging.

Hardly surprising, as it seems the idea of “Premier Doug Ford” becomes more real to people with every passing day. I’m glad to see the NDP seizing the moment as best it can, but I’m left with a dilemma that perhaps you folks can help me with.

I live in Kathleen Wynne’s riding. Her primary opposition appears to be some whitebread solar energy lobbyist running on the PC ticket who will no doubt abandon all principles in the face of Doug Ford’s brow-beating, but with the polls against Wynne and no way in hell the NDP can win a riding equal parts yuppie and McMansion, I’m left in the classic strategic voters’ quandary. I have but one vote I have ever regretted and that was for Joe Pantalone in the 2010 Toronto mayoral race, the race elected Rob Ford and forever thrust his family of assholes into the spotlight. I had seen George Smitherman’s weaselly behaviour in the past and couldn’t bring myself to vote for him and though Pantalone’s split votes couldn’t have overcome Ford’s had they been Smitherman’s, I still feel like I contributed to Ford’s win by voting stupid.

I vowed never to do that again. So I will likely have to vote Wynne to keep Blandy McPushover out of government. What do you guys think?

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

GI Joel,

Bwhahaha! I love the feigned ignorance of who Milo is. And I’ll reask the question that’s been asked of Alex Jones before. If he’s really uncovering horrifying deep state conspiracies and not just spouting paranoid assfax, how come the deep state hasn’t killed or renditioned him yet? Or at least imprison him on false charges of some sort. Why is he allowed to have a radio show, a huge online presence, and do things like “storm” the office of a major corporation with no more consequence than being non-violently escorted out by police?

Weird Eddie,

Just another poor oppressed working class white man with very important and very sad economic anxiety. How dare the meany pants liberals call such humble and lowly Trump supporters racist?

In all seriousness, this kind of thing is exactly why Americans should kid themselves into thinking the things that happened under the Third Reich, Khmer Rouge etc. can’t happen here because we love freedom and democracy too much. Just look at all the people in this country who are perfectly happy to threaten a call to ICE on people simply because of a minor personal grievance. People being willing to turn other people into the government for stepping out of line is pretty crucial to keeping authoritarian governments in power. Americans are clearly not inherently allergic to authoritarianism. But then, we already knew that.

PeeVee the Tired
PeeVee the Tired
3 years ago

Gijoel,

So Milo and Alex Jones have been busy.

Yes, Jones’ latest schtick us AI Robots, whom he says are the Deep State leakers in the WH. Because of course he does.

Weird Eddie,

Schossberg’s racism goes deeper than that…

https://twitter.com/Ike_Saul/status/867825736857636865?s=19

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

Don’t people usually rescue (or try to rescue) their spouses from the Underworld?

Perseus had to rescue a ring from the hand of Calibos so’s he could marry Andromeda…

does that count?

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

@ wwth;

The igno-right conspiracy fantasies have always been a cross between a grade-school campout ghost story and a Marvel comic. Jones is still spouting his BS because he’s protected from the bad guys by the hoary hosts of Hoggoth. Or because he’s too popular and too well-known… or because a group that’s channeling the wealth and power of the Knights Templar, and can make people’s airplanes fall from the sky, and tracks you down with mind-planted obsessions to go buy a copy of “Catcher in the Rye”, and kidnaps you from invisible helicopters in the middle of the day, in the middle of the city…. just can’t get TO good-ol’ Alex!!!

We never went to the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was a fake, climate change is a hoax, the gummint, the deep stayt… and on, and on, all based on “proof” no more in-depth than “how else do you explain the shadow in this photo??”, or “a friend of a friend saw a CraigsList ad!!”

The Earth is flat, now, Antarctica is an ice wall surrounding the disc… and you can’t prove otherwise, because all the evidence contradicting it is FAKED!!!

You can take all the ignollectuals’ arguments, mix ’em in a bowl, pour ’em out and assign each of ’em to a random conspiracy and they’d all fit just fine. You could throw in Reptilian Aliens at random and no one would even NOTICE.

It all sounds like a five-year-old lying to their parent about how the window in the front room got broken.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

A couple of years ago, I did see conspiracy theorists arguing that Alex Jones is actually a part of the new world order and he is just posing as a conspiracy uncoverer. I wish I remembered where I saw that, because it was hilarious.

Moggie
Moggie
3 years ago

Wait, so Alex Jones himself is a false flag?

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

*gasp*

FALSE FLAGS THEMSELVES ARE FALSE FLAGS

Seriously, one of the issues the conspiracy mindset has, that leads to a lot of infighting, is the idea that anyone may be a “plant”… thus, someone (Alex, for example) inadvertently uses the “wrong terminology”, and *BAM*, they’re accused before the Inquisition…

Robert Walker-Smith
Robert Walker-Smith
3 years ago

Moggie, it’s false flags all the way down.

I’ve seen things online that indicate a great distrust of Alex Jones (and others) as being a stalking horse for unseen manipulators of True Believers, or otherwise a tool of Them. It’s as if hot-eyed suspicion was a jug of bad whiskey they just can’t keep nipping at until they’re shooting at shadows.

Regarding identity politics, has anyone else noticed that the people who are most exercised about it are also emphatic about the plight of white, working class Christian men who live in small towns?

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Because white, cishet, Christian and male aren’t identities. They’re the default setting. Everyone else is a deviation from the norm, therefore they have identities and white cishet Christian men don’t. So advocating for white cishet Christian men is not identity politics.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/federal-judge-accused-ice-of-making-up-evidence-to-prove-that-dreamer-was-gang-affiliated.html

But the courts, it seems, are starting to catch wise: Trump’s immigration forces, much like Trump himself, simply cannot be trusted

Say it ain’t so!!!

Allandrel
Allandrel
3 years ago

@Katamount

They actually extend it to any ideology at all. If you organize your principles under any banner or label, that makes you a sheeple according to these privileged dillholes.

I see this a lot from the “religion is responsible for all the world’s ills” crowd, e.g. “Stalin’s purges were still caused by religion because Communism is effectively a religion.”

Pretty soon they effectively proclaim themselves the only Real True Atheists in existence.

Allandrel
Allandrel
3 years ago

@wwth

Because white, cishet, Christian and male aren’t identities. They’re the default setting. Everyone else is a deviation from the norm, therefore they have identities and white cishet Christian men don’t. So advocating for white cishet Christian men is not identity politics.,

Exactly. I see this a lot in fandom when fanboys get upset at someone trying to make a franchise “political” when it always has been, it’s just that the new direction doesn’t agree with their politics.

Take Star Wars, for example. I have seen people seriously argue that a franchise about a civil war between a totalitarian empire and a rebellion seeking to restore democracy was “never political” until Disney decided to focus on characters other than white men.

I’ve even seen people claim that Star Trek, STAR TREK, “used to be apolitical” before being “taken over by SJWs.”

It becomes pretty clear that when these guys say “apolitical,” they mean “supports the idea that white cishet Christian men are the center of the universe” and “political” means “anything that challenges that idea.”

Moggie
Moggie
3 years ago

Remarkably, the white cishet dude was default even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Shadowplay
3 years ago

@Robert

I’ve seen things online that indicate a great distrust of Alex Jones (and others) as being a stalking horse for unseen manipulators of True Believers, or otherwise a tool of Them. It’s as if hot-eyed suspicion was a jug of bad whiskey they just can’t keep nipping at until they’re shooting at shadows.

In that, the conspiracy dolts are not being over suspicious. Pick any despotism in history and you’ll find a certain amount of overt and covert dissent is not only tolerated but promoted, as both a safety valve and bait for the actual dangerous ones.

Of course, the shill doesn’t usually know they’re a shill – that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

PeeVee the Tired
PeeVee the Tired
3 years ago
PeeVee the Tired
PeeVee the Tired
3 years ago
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

The Earth is flat, now, Antarctica is an ice wall surrounding the disc… and you can’t prove otherwise, because all the evidence contradicting it is FAKED!!!

I’d love to know how the masts of ships appearing at the horizon first, before the bodies of the ships, is being faked. 🙂

(Or, from the reverse perspective, the tops of mountains appearing before the lowlands when sailing toward land.)

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@Katamount
I’m going to try to respond to your points about dealing with the lies pre-packaged for easy consumption. There are ways of framing this that might help to think about it, and I have some techniques that I’ll try to articulate (alot of what I do is implicit and reactive, instinctual responses that I struggle to objectivity describe). I’ve been pretty burned out lately but I’ll do what I can. I am restating some of what you said because I thought it might be useful coming from someone with a naturally socially aggressive/dominant personality. I hope this is useful.

Note that there are two conditions here, the person is knowingly or unknowingly spreading lies. This is an important distinction worth thinking about for effectiveness because eventually best methods need to take both into account in a process of responding to lies (my parents spread lies without meaning to).

1) The person lying is vulnerable because they are taking an action that can be confronted or otherwise responded to. That risk always remains for them. (If you get multiple people responding after the confrontation only responding to the one person can be made effective. Role-modeling one good response chain is valuable. Alternatively one can practice multiple confrontations but secondary respondents have strategic differences.)

2) Responding risks “don’t feed the trolls”, a reaction I’m trying to accommodate as what I do can look like taking awful things seriously. (General request: I’ll take tips here as I want to respect the experience of the person tired of seeing such). This is where how I do what I do can be modified (rhetorical approach vs. content). What I do ultimately involves showing how awful a person’s beliefs, ways of thinking, and actions are as much as it involves putting the burden of proof on them for the explicit or implicit lies they are spreading. It’s the inquisitor instinct. Because they are lies you know that going through the motions of taking them seriously will have a certain end-game. They can’t or won’t back their shit up and they will twist and turn in lots of ways to avoid so redirecting to their original assertions will have to be done. We are all the referees, the media just supposedly explicitly has that job.

3) The person asserting something has an obligation to demonstrate it if they wish to be taken seriously. It’s not about obeying orders to demonstrate as many will pretend. It’s about how they will look when they can’t back their shit up with respect to something they supposedly feel strongly about. It’s an implicit social dominance rule. Even a joke can be interrogated as if the interrogation was done for fun just to see the effect of why it’s funny to the person.

4) Since we are dealing with social dominance rules an effective strategy is demonstrating the flaws and drawbacks associated with the other person’s behavior. An inability to demonstrate what one fears is a bad flaw in someone supposedly concerned. An inability to explain reason and logic is a flaw. An inability to look up facts behind one’s beliefs is a flaw. An inability to engage in a social conflict without appealing to other people and groups is a flaw (the need to invoke scary feminists when discussing something women or female related for example, or Democrats when confronting something Republican related). Rhetorically going on about how awful it is to have such flaws can terrify a person otherwise willing to assert things in a social conflict context (my parents have not been very political lately, I wasn’t explicit about the flaws though. I implied multiple times. There are many approaches!)

5) Reciprocity is the heart of the metaphorical social contract. This works in both positive and negative feeling ways. If they want you to demonstrate something they have to be willing to show they can if they wish to be seen as worth an exchange (redirect back to their lies here). If they are willing to be insulting and disparaging they have to put up with the same (there will be tangents into if something is “really negative feeling” which is the heart of the objections to “outrage warriors”, this is a useful tangent as the need to control what is felt as negative is a major part of a social conflict. It’s not a waste of time so expect it and prepare for it). If they want to assert that feelings and subjective content is a problem they will have to be willing to provide the objective content attached to their own feelings. If they want to pretend that public criticism is a threat to free speech they will stop what is necessarily their own public criticism. You can metaphorically strangle them in the social contract.

6) Keep abstract versus concrete in mind. If they are being abstract demand that they be able to tie the abstraction to concrete examples relevant to their claims if they wish to actually be useful in solving the problem or even demonstrating a problem exists (Richard Dawkins famously kept posing insulting philosophical questions divorced from what people were actually complaining about when challenged for doing so, this was doubling down on an original attempt to deligitimize the complaints of people about harassment and abuse). If they are hyper-focusing on concrete examples that stereotype demand they demonstrate the abstract implication has a basis in fact worth worrying about in the current situation (false rape claims) if they want to look like they are worth listening to (the examples of false claims imply the current one should not be even discussed. Here I also point out that they seem to fear the public learning to tell the difference between claims when useful).

7) Jordan Peterson is a good example of the difficulty level. He makes what look like unarguable statements of fact (there are biological differences between the sexes) but does not directly connect them to specific, concrete, human examples in a rational and logical way. He lets implication do the work. He also tries to assert that normal, natural human behavior is illigitimate when used by political opponents (claims that the movie Frozen is an illigitimate use/modification of our mythology for political purposes when such behavior is all over the political spectrum). In the end if he has the courage to say this shit in public he will have the courage to back his shit up in public if he does not wish to look like an incompetent when it comes to demonstrating a threat. That looks bad to other socially aggressive types.

Katamount
Katamount
3 years ago

@Allandrel

I see this a lot from the “religion is responsible for all the world’s ills” crowd, e.g. “Stalin’s purges were still caused by religion because Communism is effectively a religion.”

Exactly. It’s a convenient method of red-baiting, but without seeming to champion an indefensible counter-ideology (“capitalism rocks!”).

@wwth

Because white, cishet, Christian and male aren’t identities. They’re the default setting. Everyone else is a deviation from the norm, therefore they have identities and white cishet Christian men don’t. So advocating for white cishet Christian men is not identity politics.

Ah, but their trick is to point to those that do identify as “white” or “Christian” or an “MRA” and say “They’re ideological too!” What this does though, naturally, is maintain the status quo by setting up a convenient “both sides” based on nothing but the volume of both parties. It’s a handy method of never taking stock of one’s own personal morality, nor having to learn anything–and others have noted that both ArmouredSkeptic and Shoe0nHead both spend considerable energy maintaining their innocence with respect to societal ills–but as you pointed out, only really benefits those with a straight flush of privileges.

After all, as Michael Brooks pointed out, there’s a couple words that put a dent in that whole “identity politics is worthless” argument: “can’t breathe”

And yet… and yet… these guys are still feeling morose and despondent and aimless precisely because they’ve rejected all ideologies except for “consumer.” That one is apparently not an identity, so Gamer, Comic Book Reader, Sci-Fi Fantasy Reader, all consumer identities, these are specifically not “identity politics” in these guy’s heads. Funny that.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

Tangentally I’ve recently come up with something else related to the social contract* related to people paranoia about discussing accusations of sexual harassment and abuse or other systemic problems. As long as these problems exist the social contract is broken with respect to those issues so their fears have no power and the people trying to have the discussion have no social obligations at all. Victims don’t have to care about things like false claims for example. The social contract is broken and the paranoid person should confronting the broken social structures and related persons because that is the only place where feelings of obligation can be invoked.

*Looks like I have the instinct to take, manipulate, and use against, the language used by a group I percieve as a social threat (I’ve noted how others have done this against us). The “social contract” is a concept I’ve seen used in libertarian politics. It’s useful to be able to see where we are like our percieved enemies so we can be responsible about general human behavior.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
3 years ago

OFF-TOPIC:

Have you guys had the opportunity to read this post of a self-declared non-pedophile 37 seeking to date girls as young as 15 yet?

https://imgur.com/a/qcIaEGC

https://imgur.com/a/4OQnuGo

I apologize in advance for the eye cancer. Here’s some brain bleach:

https://imgur.com/a/z7aUwfy

My sister’s pit caught in a laundry basket after shenanigans.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

I’m posting the link to the article I’m discussing here… (content warning for nothing of ANY possible value) The article is a discussion of a piece Lara Witt wrote for WearYourVoice online magazine (and which I read on EverydayFeminism)

https://www.thelibertyconservative.com/lara-witt-would-be-a-terrible-first-date/

This quote from the article, I think, sums up the cis-het-white-male priveliged position from which they analyze life….

… intersectionality is a phony concept that exists for one reason: it gives liberals something to bitch about. Period. It’s the idea that if you possess one or more features of an oppressed or otherwise disadvantaged group, you’re at greater risk of discrimination. It’s a crass perpetuation of the victimhood mentality that holds hostage imbeciles like Lara….

The writer first identifies “intersectionality” as the subject matter being discussed, then defines “intersectionality” as a “phoney concept. Moving on, the writer then explains “intersectionality” using a surprisingly adept definition, given that they have just dismissed it as non-existent.

the idea that if you possess one or more features of an oppressed or otherwise disadvantaged group, you’re at greater risk of discrimination

Rather than explain why this idea is not real, the writer instead confers an ad hominem attack on Witt.

Because of course.

Because cis-het-white-xian-male IS the default, anyone arguing from that position does not have to defend that position. All they need to do is point out that the idea they’re objecting to differs from default.

Additionally, since the cis-het-white-xian-male identity is intimately integrated with bullying, an ad hominem attack is considered adequate for closing the discussion.

tl:dr…
For ignollectuals, “You’re stupid” is a complete refutation….

PeeVee the Tired
PeeVee the Tired
3 years ago

Schlossberg has been doing this shit for a while.

https://twitter.com/MoreWillie/status/996843036717080578?s=19

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

So many atheists forget that at the very least religion is a perfectly natural feature of human behavior. Reguardless of ultimate issues or how beliefs match up with reality, there will be a correlate to religious behavior among atheists if we are correct about our disbelief or not.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
3 years ago

@ PeeVee

(/s) bless his little heart, he has a hobby