Recently one of our frothier, crazier members, who is in my opinion a fascinating real-time case study of alt-right radicalization, posted a journal titled "Conservatism is the new counter-culture." The entry is...well, wrong on the face of it for reasons I will explain below, not to mention rambling, pointless, and demented.
First of all, by definition, conservatism cannot be "counterculture" because the very concept means to hold onto the status quo. Many self-described "conservatives" are actually reactionaries, which are the "let's blow up the observatory so no asteroid ever hits us!" types, and are either too dumb to know the difference or too evil to care and will use the word conservative to hide their actual intent. I am leaning toward the first. Nevertheless, a conservative by definition cannot be counterculture.
No, what we have here is reactionary backlash. It's another wave of the same kind of whiny crybaby temper tantrums people threw with the desegregation of public spaces, or the passage of Loving vs. Virginia, or the more recent passage of nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages: people who used to be the nation's punching bags now have (closer to...) equal rights in society, and the ones who used to be able to do anything from simply mocking them to discriminating against them for housing and jobs to outright killing them with few or no repercussions are asspained that they can't any longer.
And this reactionary backlash always follows a well-worn, drearily predictable pattern: demonizing twice as hard, insisting that equality under the law is actually special privilege, bitching and moaning that actually $GROUP are the bad guys and they (the complainers) are the real victims and the actual ones being discriminated against, all slathered with a heaping helping of pig-ignorant but incredibly loud wrongness about liberty and the First Amendment and family values and what have you.
The new demons-du-jour seem to be trans* people. I don't get it either, but Stonewall was barely 20 years before I was born, and even today there are people who will do anything from assault you to torture and kill you for being gay. For that reason, they have my support in general, even though I've had some really bad experiences with transwomen/MtFs and really only know transmen/FtMs (and all three of the ones I know are super-cool people and way less toxic as men than most cismen I know, somehow...).
Another thing I notice is that the specific pattern of accusations and charges leveled against the demonized group never changes: they're mentally ill, they're innately criminal and/or disordered, they're making society adapt to them instead of the other way around, they're loud and shrill, they're "shoving $DIFFERENCE down my throat," they're demanding special privileges, they're a tyrannical minority, and so on, and so forth. Crimes committed by any member of $GROUP are taken to be evidence that every member is the same way and, often, used to obscure or misdirect attention from the systematic injustices done to them. When they speak out, it's considered "troublemaking."
And at the heart of it all is, like I said above, plain ol' overprivileged resentment at not being able to divide the world into in-group and out-group and shit all over the out-group so easily any longer. It's not quite this simple of course; many people are "secondary racists" or "secondary gay/trans-haters," which is to say they have some very real economic or social grievances and have been convinced ("redpilled") that $GROUP is the cause of all their suffering by a few utter sociopaths who find their reactionary flailing useful (and perhaps amusing). Still, primary or secondary doesn't matter too much to the person whose life is made hell, or ended outright.
I don't know what to do about this. There are mind-disrupting memeplexes, "basilisks" as I've called them elsewhere, that seem able to permanently alter peoples' ability to relate to others different from them, and in many cases make them tacitly approve of if not outright participate in their ostracism, suffering, and deaths. As it is well-known that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, there are few options left and even fewer that don't have horrible side effects themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:37AM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:37AM (#885942)
This is exactly why conservatives/reactionaries/right wing or whatever you call it types could imitate and understand progressive types so easily but not the other way around. The latter simply doesn't understand why it is so, merely building off the images within their heads of their opponents.
Jonathan Haidth (say what you will about his ancestry) explains it perfectly well when he was studying morality comparing first world and third world cultures. What one considers "morally wrong" in fact first comes from instinct and gut feeling, and then followed by justification. The example he asked was "Is it wrong to eat the dead family pet?" followed by "Is it wrong to commit bestiality on a dead animal?". Right wing types will just point to their religious scriptures, cultural taboos etc. The rest of the supposedly more "enlightened" respondents were unable to explain why they found an act to be "morally wrong" yet maintain to do so.
Progressive types have a hypersensitive yet highly narrow form of morality, any slights will produce a massive gut wrench that feeds back into the morality loop enforcing the perception the "other" is purely evil without any redeeming qualities. This goes on to justify their overreaction towards others that fall outside their purview of "good".
Just look at what Azumi wrote:
And at the heart of it all is, like I said above, plain ol' overprivileged resentment at not being able to divide the world into in-group and out-group and shit all over the out-group so easily any longer. It's not quite this simple of course; many people are "secondary racists" or "secondary gay/trans-haters," which is to say they have some very real economic or social grievances and have been convinced ("redpilled") that $GROUP is the cause of all their suffering by a few utter sociopaths who find their reactionary flailing useful (and perhaps amusing). Still, primary or secondary doesn't matter too much to the person whose life is made hell, or ended outright.
No doubt Azumi would make for a very fine Catholic.
Personally, I am pretty much convinced none of this left/right wing stuff doesn't even matter, either way, the superior culture will displace the inferior, one way or another.
I'd love to debate morals with someone opposed to me who had a coherent epistemological framework for their morality, but...well, so far, no one has. And the religious attempt at meta-ethics, "divine command theory," is so bad it's not even laughable.
Also, you forgot to log in, Runaway :D I know that typo. Don't get me confused with Hatsumi; that's my adoptive big sister, best friend, love interest, and possible mitochondrial mother of the human race because hurr hurr anime, whatcha gonna do?
-- I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Bot on Monday August 26 2019, @11:08PM (2 children)
Given your way of understanding me from my comments, I have little faith you got right the rest of the team.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:37AM (1 child)
This is exactly why conservatives/reactionaries/right wing or whatever you call it types could imitate and understand progressive types so easily but not the other way around. The latter simply doesn't understand why it is so, merely building off the images within their heads of their opponents.
Jonathan Haidth (say what you will about his ancestry) explains it perfectly well when he was studying morality comparing first world and third world cultures. What one considers "morally wrong" in fact first comes from instinct and gut feeling, and then followed by justification. The example he asked was "Is it wrong to eat the dead family pet?" followed by "Is it wrong to commit bestiality on a dead animal?". Right wing types will just point to their religious scriptures, cultural taboos etc. The rest of the supposedly more "enlightened" respondents were unable to explain why they found an act to be "morally wrong" yet maintain to do so.
Progressive types have a hypersensitive yet highly narrow form of morality, any slights will produce a massive gut wrench that feeds back into the morality loop enforcing the perception the "other" is purely evil without any redeeming qualities. This goes on to justify their overreaction towards others that fall outside their purview of "good".
Just look at what Azumi wrote:
No doubt Azumi would make for a very fine Catholic.
Personally, I am pretty much convinced none of this left/right wing stuff doesn't even matter, either way, the superior culture will displace the inferior, one way or another.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:06AM
I'd love to debate morals with someone opposed to me who had a coherent epistemological framework for their morality, but...well, so far, no one has. And the religious attempt at meta-ethics, "divine command theory," is so bad it's not even laughable.
Also, you forgot to log in, Runaway :D I know that typo. Don't get me confused with Hatsumi; that's my adoptive big sister, best friend, love interest, and possible mitochondrial mother of the human race because hurr hurr anime, whatcha gonna do?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...