Karmaze
1yr ago
In that first bit, I notice how they scooted RIGHT by a discussion about class. Nope, can't talk about that, have to go right to race. I'll stick with my stance that the current favor of various forms of monodirectional power dynamics (and let me just say the assumption of this is absolutely a form of bigotry going in every which way) is exactly to freeze out these discussions. Because when you add class inequality to the discussion, suddenly, it changes from trying to gatekeep and control the pipeline to give the people you want an advantage over the outgroup, it suddenly becomes a talk about how to manage and encourage relative socioeconomic decline (I.E. term limits for jobs, end of tenure, catering your programs to the lower classes, like Ivy League schools opening up sections dedicated to teaching trades to local people) among the in-group. And that's a huge third rail.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I raised the issue. It's something I believe about the whole thing...not that he never existed however.
I think it's fair to say that the way things shook out, there were essentially "two camps" in the atheism sphere after that. You had what became the Atheism+ Progressive camp, and you had what I'd call the "south of center" liberal/libertarian camp. I'm assuming there's not going to be many conservatives hanging around atheist conventions. Nothing personal against conservatives intended here. I just think there's so few it's hard to even say there's a camp.
The way Elevatorgate was used, I really do think, was to redirect power and influence away from the liberal/libertarian camp towards the Progressive camp. However, I strongly believe what makes the most sense is that "Elevatorguy" was actually from the Progressive side, not the Liberal/Libertarian side. Which of course, would look very poorly on that particular circle.
That's my take at least.
Karmaze
1yr ago
How much energy do you want to invest in trying not to give money to your political enemies?
I don't look at these things in this light. I don't think it's about political enemies at all. I think it's more so, don't spent time/energy/money on people who think that you're a problem that needs to be solved. It's not because you're rewarding them/encouraging them/providing them ammo. It's because eventually they're going to pull the rug out from under you.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I think the thing about Tate and co, is that they represent what essentially is an aspirational culture these days. Represent isn't exactly the correct word, but I'm not sure how else to put it. But I think they're reflecting a view based on a certain "Social Media Yuppie" perspective that's coming out of a few large cities, frankly, London is the biggest example here I think. Where they're wrong of course, is that the SM Yuppie mentality, isn't as common outside of these places as these people think. But that doesn't mean that it's not influential either. I do think there's reasons why people see this as pretty much the peak of attainable status right now.
And I think people do see traits of SM Yuppie culture "bleed out", and I think there's a reaction to it.
I've always argued that the manosphere as a whole (and it's a bunch of different parts and I acknowledge that) should be more focused on teaching people to avoid red flags. And I understand avoiding these red flags are tough, because again, these are relatively high-status baddies we're talking about here. But still...you don't want to deal with the narcissistic traits here. Just say no. It's not worth the headache. But educating men about potential red flags has always been seen as misogynistic by people who well...promote and sell those flags, giving them out to women to be honest.
And then there's the concern that this SM Yuppie culture will be picked up on by your partner in an existing relationship. What do you do then?
Anyway, I think largely that's what this is all about. I think you can avoid it if you want to, especially if you recognize status pressures and try your best to avoid them. But that doesn't necessarily make it easy or without cost.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Honestly, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I actually think it's a power fight over who has to check their privilege and who doesn't. Who is going to be deconstructed and who is going to be spared that inspection. As people say in this community, it's the "Who, Whom" problem, Who sets the rules and on whom are they going to be enforced. Truth be told, I don't think any of the individual issues actually matter all that much in terms of the culture wars.
I'll be blunt, actually "checking your privilege" is basically riddled with anxiety, if you're actually doing it. I'm speaking as someone with personal experience in this. It's about always second and third-guessing everything you actually do. It's not healthy in any way shape or form. The goal is to get the outgroup to do it, but not the in-group, so the in-group has decided advantages in society.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I don't know of another way to put it. Maybe there's nothing ironic about it, but I do think that the ShitRedditSays culture that IMO A+ fundamentally is based on is stupid levels of cruel. I know, even back when I was on the other side of things, and people were raving about how cool that culture was, I took one look at it and just noped away. It's something I want no part of.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I mean, I'll give mine.
After the whole EG thing, I started talking about how they needed to change the code of conduct/create a schedule to make these events more professional on the whole. Sure you could have your fun/flirty drinky time, but they'd be limited to certain events that people could opt-in/opt-out of.
Went over like a lead balloon.
It's when I realized people were full of shit, they didn't want any actual change, they just wanted the power to enforce arbitrary rules to both get rid of undesirables and to protect themselves.
Karmaze
1yr ago
People who believe that it's an unalloyed good since you can meet your soulmate or something are, probably, just not ugly; for less lucky ones (and who are also not exceptional in some way), flirting in the workspace is a non-starter, so they just lose the possibility to make a living without humiliation.
I think people really miss how dehumanizing that is, the idea that you can't do something that other people around you can do. And I'm not even saying it's necessarily wrong that we are that way. But it is going to impact people, no doubt about it.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Certainly I agree with you.
My point is that I really do think it was the Atheism+ strand of the whole thing that "caught fire" and was broadly picked up. I don't think it was picked up directly from LJ, Tumblr or SRS so much, although certainly, and I specifically think it was SRS that was embraced by the A+ crowd...
Actually let me rephrase that. I think the FTB side of the whole A+ thing was heavily influenced by SRS, and the whole ironic cruelty thing. But there was also the A+ forums, (and the two didn't really get along) that was much more Tumblr influenced I think. (Honestly, the whole LiveJournal as radical thing missed me, so I can't really tell you much, the only things I ever read on there were Scott's journal pre-SSC and various Tales from Tech Support type stuff)
Anyway, I do think that largely it's that "ironic cruelty" that set the stage for what we see as woke culture today.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The actual argument, that isn't actually made because it's...well...ugly, but I actually do think it's the argument being made a lot of the time in these cases, is that men should know their Sexual Marketplace Value and act accordingly. And actually, just to be safe, men should probably underestimate significantly their SMV.
The problem is that basically makes it a world for narcissists, really.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Certainly there's some element of bad faith here...but I do think there's an open question in terms of determining what. Is it a way to slag off those dirty hippies? Or...is the person just defending the culture of alcohol/psychedelics? (more than likely the former).
It's surprising how many people out there for whom talking about the potential downsides of social alcohol use is a 3rd rail.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Oooh I have thoughts on this. I'll be honest, I actually think Atheism+ is the "root" of what makes up much of Woke/Neoprogressive culture today. Or more specifically, it was the vector that took this stuff from forums to social media. I was actually there for it. In fact, I would say that during it was when I "switched sides"....or more specifically, I realized that me, as a liberal, really had nothing in common with this form of Progressivism. What I saw, was people wanted power more than actual systematic change. Simple as that.
Later on, I came to the conclusion that Elevatorgate more than likely was always "inside the house", that is, it was specifically a problem for this Neoprogressive/Polyamorous community. And in reality, so much of the problems that were being claimed were linked to that. I still find it hard to believe that nobody actually knew who "Elevator Guy" is, to be blunt.
Now, let me make it clear. I have nothing at all against Polyamory. In fact, I am Poly myself. However...I do think that this combined with a sort of moral license that can come from political activism can be a negative thing. And I don't think it's limited to the left...or even directly linked to polyamory actually. Certainly it's a problem you see on the religious right as well.
I am disappointed that EA is used in this way, although in retrospect it's probably impossible to avoid.
I have to say I find this funny. People discovering that looser social and sexual norms allow bad actors - or merely "people with more status than me who don't want to treat me as I think I deserve" - to accrue sexual and social benefits and blue the lines. Quelle surprise.
See, I'm not even convinced that it's the looser social and sexual norms per se. I mean in a way it is. But I do think the second half of that..."people with more status than me who don't want to treat me as I think I deserve", preys on a lot of status hunger among people. Frankly, that's what makes people vulnerable, both because they want the social status power, and they're also afraid of it being used against them.
The term I used way back when was "Theme Park". It seemed to me that people wanted this edgeless, curated environment for them to explore whatever they wanted to. However, that's not realistic at all.
Karmaze
1yr ago
But even setting that aside, what you're saying seems like the sort of "do as I say, not as I do" intentional sabotage from Western elites. Maybe someone should slip esteogen and SSRIs into the water at Davos.
So, I'm someone who would be an Incel, probably not one of those angry political people, but one none the less, if it wasn't for a big stroke of luck on my behalf. And there's absolutely a "do as I say, not as I do" element to it.
Incels are people who have taken the nu-male model and actually take it seriously, internalizing and actualizing the teachings. I think people just don't want to grapple with the idea that their ideology/aesthetic/politics can actually harm people, combined with the "ick"/low-status factor. That's my take based on my experience.
Those angry Political Incels, as I call them? By and large, they want those nu-male actualized traits to be lionized and considered high-status in society. That's generally what the complaint comes down to. And I mean...it's not going to happen, right? Self-improvement is the way forward and out. But that's often seen as a reactionary thing in and of itself.
Karmaze
1yr ago
For what it's worth, what's driving this thing right now is that the corporate view is that MTG has essentially peaked, and they need a new growth vector, and that's in D&D. This is public information, to be clear. There's no speculation, this is what they've said.
The speculation is that it's bad as they need to essentially quintuple their revenue on the quick or the department is going to be mothballed.
Karmaze
1yr ago
My personal controversial belief about this is that people are often against porn for this very reason. They want actual sex to be like this, where you focus solely on your own pleasure. Porn "raises the bar" in a way that makes them uncomfortable about their own performance.
The son of the creator of D&D came out with a new TSR (the original creators) came out with a product recently that some people did say would fall afoul of the "no hateful content" policy. Conduct is a different story altogether, especially in a world where so many people view any sort of criticism as abuse. I actually think that's the bigger threat in terms of this policy.
You have to take into account, I think the larger story of what's going on. This is really targeting Virtual Tabletop providers (VTT) such as Fantasy Grounds and Roll20. That's who they really want to shut down. They're in the works making their own VTT program, and my guess is that the next version of D&D is going to be entirely based around it. To the point where I wouldn't be shocked if the next core rules simply don't include any dice formulas at all. You're expected to be logged in on your cell phone if you're playing at home, and push a button and the server will determine the outcome.
Where these things come together, I think, is to restrict the ability of these services to exist, under the guise of keeping out bad content and the bad people.
The whole point of this, is either some sort of subscription service or a Gatcha style game. The whole point is that basically WotC gotta turn D&D into a billion dollar brand and soon. That's the pressure. Which is something like a 500% increase. It's a sort of go big or go home thing. And I mean that. Apparently Hasbro is trimming the fat of their "underperforming" IPs, and this might be a gasp for that team to keep their jobs.
Karmaze
1yr ago
I'm long someone who has argued that a lot of the conflict regarding the culture wars is actually a personality difference between people with externalizing personalities and people with internalizing personalities, and along that spectrum, people are just going to react to things differently, and in a way that's a lot of the time inherently incomprehensible. Because talking about this, looking at it in this framework, and when talking about both your sister and your father (and note: I think there's a LOT of externalized bigotry out there. And this is a good thing. Not that the bigotry exists, but that externalized bigotry is a hell of a lot better than internalized bigotry. People just don't all that often treat individuals all that badly IMO, at least not nearly as much as you'd expect if you just looked at the discourse) those are both views that are high in the externalized part of the spectrum.
But what about those on the other end? The people with highly internalizing personalities? I think we're (and yes I'm one of them) going to generally avoid strong political messages of any type, largely because those strong messages are personally unworkable. There are exceptions of course, and it's fundamentally unhealthy, and it's going to lead to some....out-there behavior.
It's not that these things are not beliefs. It's just how different people interface with their beliefs, more than anything. Ideally, we'll get a sort of balance on these things. Truth is, we want moderates on the Internalize/Externalize spectrum running things. But I'm not sure that's usually the case, and I do think Externalizing mindsets are very effective in gaining and achieving power. This is to me a big fundamental part of the problem. It's why, as other people have mentioned, politics often does turn into this culture war without any sort of empathy or room for pluralism. And maintaining power is important...because I do think everybody can see the hypocrisy. And at the end of the day, there's always the threat that the rope of power that's preventing the sword from falling will eventually break.
Truth is, I think this is why people need to lead with workable, material models AND a concept for when it goes too far. To me, this is how you reign these things in. Keeping it vague, I think, is just playing into these personality conflicts.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Rural Japanese cuisine good girl is best girl. Seriously, her story arc was the best thing about that series.
In any case, I think this is an interesting question. I think we need a term for the sort of hyper-online partisan political engagement culture. I have no clue what it could be. In any case...would Twitter be better off if it basically ignored that? I think the argument you're making...and I agree...is that it seemed that it leaned in to that culture over the last few years, pretty hard, and maybe it would be better off if it didn't. And I think that lack of value...I'm certainly seeing people want to leave Twitter because frankly, they don't want to be in a space that they see as fundamentally hostile to them. And I'm thinking...welcome to my world where practically every place is hostile to me.
In any case, I do think that's where things are heading to some degree, is a deprioritization of politics overall. And honestly that's a good thing. That's where most of the toxicity comes from.
So, I've actually done this sort of chat support before. It was a long time ago, probably right at the beginning where it was even a thing. We're talking 2005 or so. So here's my take on the whole thing.
First of all, yeah. This is probably someone in India. "Kindly" is the big giveaway here.
But here's my guess about how these things are run. First, "Sarah" is probably doing between 4-8 chats at the same time. Truth is, when I did this, there were times I ran up to 12 at the same time. Maybe it was bad for me to do this because it set expectations, but I also let people know that you needed someone really good at this to do this.
Probably more controversially, I doubt that there's any sort of standardized script. It would be MUCH cleaner. There's almost certainly a standardized workflow, but no actual help in doing the work. My guess is that the client (this is undoubtedly an outsource company after all) is demanding original interactions in order for it to feel more "authentic" and natural. So you have a situation where maybe there's an unofficial text file passed around the office, that people cut and paste into the chat. The intent is that everything is freshly typed in by the agent....not realistic at all given the metrics and demands...but that doesn't matter. So this is kind of the work-around to survive.
A lot of the stuttering and everything is again, designed to meet metrics, so the supervisors can meet THEIR metrics, and the higher-ups can meet THEIR metrics so the center as a whole can meet their contracted goals and get sweet sweet bonuses. But that latter part doesn't matter nearly as much as everything beneath it. The stuttering refreshes a delay/time to respond counter that's actively measured.
More than anything, the point is that the problem above everything else is one of the combination of Corporatism and the Iron Law of Institutions. (I'd personally consider these the same thing, or at least there's substantial overlap here). Who gives a fuck if the customer experience is gawd awful. All the managers are getting paid for it on both sides. You just have to create the illusion of success, which is much easier than actually creating success.
Edit: Some background on what I did. I was on a team who did the original testing for the chat support functionality of a major US ISP when it first rolled out. Because of this, for the most part it was e-mail issues, although we got the odd intermittent connection issue. Yes, I had a text file with solutions for common problems/requests that I just copied pasted into the chat. But because I was good at diagnosing the issues, I'd say it was correct the vast majority of the time. If I had to type something in manually it's not like it irritated me and I just scoffed the client off...those issues were interesting to me and I was more than willing to give good instructions. I'd just take those instructions and add them to my text file in case the problem came back. I didn't do it because I was lazy or I didn't want to help the customers...there was just no point reinventing the wheel for every person who wanted to know how to set up their e-mail in Outlook, or at the time, were dealing with spoofed/virus e-mails. (This was actually the big contact driver for my department)
I think it's more complicated, at least I'd say that there's a clear fourth category: That the social/cultural/institutional power given to modern activism based around postmodern Critical concepts of power creates situations that are rife for abuse. I think there's a second side of it...in that I do think that internalizing/actualizing said postmodern Critical concepts of power is unhealthy on a personal level. In reality, when people talk about "Grooming" in this context, I think that's largely what they mean. It's just a very....ugly shorthand?
But someone down below said something I agree with. I don't think this language comes out of nowhere. I think people either try, or they see the reaction given to less ugly ways of saying/presenting the same idea. And it's not like those less ugly ways of presenting it, or even more moderate ways of presenting the same thing get a better response. You're just as much of a bigot either way. So there's really no incentive to NOT go full culture war TBH.
I'm not saying this in approval, to make it clear. And I'm not saying it as any sort of traditionalist. I'm a modernist liberal who does value diversity, but I also think that the above postmodern Critical concepts of power are stupid dangerous and unsustainable, speaking as someone who actually grew up internalizing them.
I'd even go a step further, and honestly...I don't see this as "hate". I see this as fear. And yeah, they can look alike and one can bleed into the other. But I do think there's too much discussion that has the effect of declaring that marginalized identities should be given essentially blank checks. It won't be abused, of course, because they're the good guys, not like those non-marginalized identities who are the bad guys. And this isn't a strawman...this rhetoric is too common, even if I don't think people usually actually mean it. But...not everybody gets that message. And certainly we're not talking about what that actually means....if it's not meant why do people say it? (Covering up for uncomfortable facets of power, privilege and bias that discussion of such would negatively impact people with social/network power)
But yeah. As someone who thinks that "whataboutism" is like just one of the most illiberal memes out there....we can't look at stuff like this in a partisan fashion. Again, as someone else mentioned below, you're not going to get your Yellow Card/15-Yard Penalty aimed at just Conservatives. It's not going to do any good, I don't think. Hell, even if you could take enough control to get all "Groomer" language excised from the internet...I do not believe that's going to help. Frankly, I think down that road, you gotta keep on going until you get to straight up mass violence. Not an option. Which is why I think it has to be holistic. I think you have to understand WHY this meme exists, and actually work to defuse it. People SEE the power. And they react to it. The best thing you can do, IMO, is negate that power. Don't give the activists a blank check. Again, this isn't meaning to be any sort of reactionary thing. It doesn't have to be. What's important for a liberal, modernist order is the perception that we're moving towards everybody playing by the same rules. Not throwing that out the window.
Edit: Just want to add one thing. I really do think a lot of this is caused by people who have an unrealistic notion of what "normal" is. This is something that sets expectations at a degree that just doesn't work. I see a lot of language out there that's like......"majority X would get away with this", when that's obviously not true at all. Or the idea that like, any white guy could walk into a bank, give the manager a handshake and walk out with a loan. Things like that.
So you have activists who are demanding this notion of "normal", who legitimately believe that this is what it means.
Karmaze
2yr ago
What, the Stay Puff Marshmellow Man in a Klan hat thing? No no no. I'm just riffing directly off of Ghostbusters, where I really do think people get to choose "the form of the destroyer" based upon what things they actually bother to react to. It's the best analogy to how I think these things work. At the very least, they get to amplify whatever they want to amplify into the big threat. Then Toxoplasma of Rage comes into play, and everything just gets ugly.
Karmaze
2yr ago
As other people have said, I do think there's problems with male sex toys that don't exist nearly to the same degree as with women's sex toys. And these frankly, are largely biological in nature and I don't expect them to be solved easily. Clean-up is a bigger problem, as an example. That said, I do think the social/cultural things are true, and male sexuality is largely seen as a very status sensitive thing, men not having sex makes you low status, but at the same time, nobody wants low status men to even acknowledge their sexuality, and think they should know their place, and that creates a lot of problems.
So I think it's a mix of these two things. Like I keep on saying, I don't think the Male Gender Role is going away anytime soon, no matter how much we might try to undermine men's ability to actually fulfil it. As such, I think for most men the focus is going to be on pleasing their partner. Just the way it is.
P.S. The Magic Wand thing is so....normal now that makes sense. But the Satisfiyer thing? From what I've been told that shit works wonders. Hell of a lot better than the toys men have access to I think.
I would argue that pretty much all the activists involved are hoisted by their own petard. That this is something that simply can't be actually resolved through Progressive structures based on Critical concepts of power, and that at every single level, these models of power/culture/identity are the cause of the conflict.
More options
Context Copy link