Lewis2
1mo ago
For what duration? Eventually they’ll age out of the business. Or is this just a sneaky attempt to reenact prohibition in a few decades’ time?
Lewis2
1mo ago
I think we’re in complete agreement. Fascism as it is usually understood is in the “social conservatism, big government” quadrant, but it isn’t the only thing in that quadrant. However, it seems to me that @Capital_Room is pulling a dirty trick. He’s claiming that fascism is just a neutral descriptor (“any socially-conservative right-wing that isn't this way (particularly when its supporters are mostly white and/or Christian) is definitionally fascist”), but then he also says things like,
Well, once in my college days, I responded by asking what would happen if the Republican party stopped trying to cut government, and focused instead on how to run it when in charge. Would that, therefore, be less objectionable?
The answer was not just no, but hell no. That would be the worst-case scenario. Because no matter how bad the "cut taxes, cut regulation, kill the government" GOP was, any socially-conservative right wing party that didn't embrace this, which actually wanted to run the government, and use it toward right-wing ends, would be a fascist party.
And
The alternative of course is being replaced by another ascendant elite who will "restore democracy" inasmuch as they will fix the system in favor of new patrons who actually listen to the native proletariat.
In other words, a fascist takeover. I can't see our current elites doing anything other than using every tool and bit of power at their disposal to prevent this.
And
The patricians all agree that what the plebs want is beyond the pale, because what the plebs want is fascism.
Which rather gives the game away. “Fascism is just the neutral umbrella term we use for political ideologies in that quadrant.” Okay, fine. “Which means that obviously you can’t support it.” Wait, why not? “Because it’s fascism!”
As I said earlier, the same definitional trick has been played many times before with communism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. What puzzles me is who Capital_Room thinks he’s going to convince with that trick here. Is there anyone on this site who doesn’t immediately realize what he’s trying to do? His goals are especially obvious when he says things like,
[GOP elites] are in favor of Burkean incrementalism, moving things in the same direction as the left, just much more slowly.
Why was the party elite this way? Because it's the only acceptable form the "right wing" can take, particularly in a modern, Western country.
In short, it’s just a rhetorical trick to prevent his ideological opponents from supporting social conservatism. The only acceptable conservatism in a modern Western country is one that doesn’t actually conserve anything, just drifts leftward more slowly. Of course, voters are finally wising up to this and voting MAGA, AfD, FPÖ, etc.,
Lewis2
1mo ago
Using this definition of fascist, I’m forced to ask, what’s so bad about fascism?
This reminds me of Scott’s essay, “Social Justice and Words, Words, Words,” specifically this bit:
I think there is a strain of the social justice movement which is very much about abusing this ability to tar people with extremely dangerous labels that they are not allowed to deny, in order to further their political goals.
And later,
If racism school dot tumblr dot com and the rest of the social justice community are right, “racism” and “privilege” and all the others are innocent and totally non-insulting words that simply point out some things that many people are doing and should try to avoid.
If I am right, “racism” and “privilege” and all the others are exactly what everyone loudly insists they are not – weapons – and weapons all the more powerful for the fact that you are not allowed to describe them as such or try to defend against them. The social justice movement is the mad scientist sitting at the control panel ready to direct them at whomever she chooses. Get hit, and you are marked as a terrible person who has no right to have an opinion and who deserves the same utter ruin and universal scorn as Donald Sterling. Appease the mad scientist by doing everything she wants, and you will be passed over in favor of the poor shmuck to your right and live to see another day. Because the power of the social justice movement derives from their control over these weapons, their highest priority should be to protect them, refine them, and most of all prevent them from falling into enemy hands.
If “fascism” is just a neutral descriptor of one quadrant of the political graph, then supporting fascism should be no more controversial or upsetting than supporting libertarianism or neoliberalism or socialism, and it certainly shouldn’t result in people losing their minds TDS-style. But I think that there’s a bait and switch going on here, that labeling the socially-conservative-yet-fiscally-progressive quadrant “fascism” is a deliberate choice to poison the public discourse by tarring your political opponents as Hitler wannabes.
It’s the same tactic Greatest Generation and Boomer conservatives used when constantly decrying their political opponents as communists for supporting even a modicum of socialism, just in reverse. It seems to me that the tactic wasn’t particularly honest then, and it isn’t particularly honest now.
But again, if I’m wrong, and you’re using “fascism” in a neutral, judgement-free, purely descriptive sense, then what’s the the big deal? Why be so upset about fascism?
Lewis2
1mo ago
Don’t forget Georgia Representative Hank Johnson, who famously worried that the island of Guam might tip over and capsize.
Ah, that makes more sense. I initially thought you meant he was an affirmative action appointment and was therefore the most persuasive example against affirmative action because he sucked. I didn’t pick up on the fact that you were establishing a dilemma.
Edit: On rereading, I think if you didn’t intend the message to be “Clarence Thomas sucks,” you rather muddied the waters by mentioning his name immediately after saying, “Nowhere can a black person rise farther with less talent than by claiming to be a Republican.”
Lewis2
1mo ago
A nice write up, but what’s with the dig against Clarence Thomas at the end? What’s so bad about him?
Lewis2
1mo ago
To add to this, until Griswold v. Connecticut was decided in 1965, many states had laws prohibiting married couples from using contraceptives, so great was their governments’ interest in promoting children and preventing vice.
I would consider killing uninvolved civilians to be a war crime, and I believe that triple tapping a convoy is pretty deliberate. As for starvation, I defer to the humanitarian organizations and foreign governments that have been involved in relief efforts, who almost unanimously agree that Gaza is on the brink of famine.
Edit: Oh, and as to the last point, let’s not forget that at least one member of the Israeli government has gone on record that it is “just and moral” to starve the entire Gazan population until Israeli demands are met.
Lewis2
1mo ago
War crimes, yes. Deliberately attacking humanitarian relief convoys, yes. Cruelly doing their utmost to starve the Gazans to death while still maintaining some level of deniability, also unfortunately yes. But given the relatively low fatality rate, can you really say that the actual fighting has been all that brutal?
I’m no fan of Israel’s behavior, but let’s be clear about what heinous actions they are and aren’t committing.
Lewis2
1mo ago
When you say collapse, what exactly do you have in mind? Are we talking about a triage situation or something more long-term damaging? If it’s the former, I would consider the situation deeply unfortunate, but it’s also something that would resolve itself in relatively short order.
Take the issue of ventilator shortages, which I recall being a real problem in some areas in early to mid-2020. It’s horrifying if you’re a Covid patient who needs a ventilator but who can’t get one, but I wouldn’t consider the deaths that resulted from such shortages to constitute collapse of the hospital infrastructure.
Also, on the topic of lockdowns, it seems to me that we went about it in exactly the wrong way. Assuming we were going to do some kind of lockdown regardless, it seems to me that we should have forced the at-risk portions of the population to isolate, directed the fountain of free federal money to “reward” those who stayed on the job, let the disease rip through the healthy population, then rescinded all lockdown measures once the number of cases was low enough that there was little risk of overwhelming the hospital systems. You’re still running rough-shod over some people’s freedoms, but that seemed to be inevitable by March of 2020, and at least this plan seems like it would have been less destructive and more effective.
Lewis2
1mo ago
I’m not even sure it’s entirely a reproductive issue instead of a general fitness one. It seemed like every time I heard about some perfectly normal, healthy young person dying of Covid, it turned out he or she weighed 300 lbs.
Lewis2
1mo ago
I can’t speak to most people, but I remember how bad it was. It was so bad that New York City had to bring in emergency 1,000-bed hospital ships in order to handle the overflow of cases. Of course, those ships sat virtually empty and unused, and their large crew of medical workers basically got to enjoy a free holiday, but still, they had to bring in ships! It was so bad, Covid-positive patients had to be rehoused away from the hospitals and into empty schools nursing homes, for some reason. It was so bad that nurses were so exhausted, they barely had the time and energy to make TikTok videos to help keep people’s spirits up as they were imprisoned in their homes. It was bad.
Lewis2
1mo ago
A lot of COVID-denier types were able to miss just how close we were to total collapse because everyone was locked up at home but this could be really, really bad.
I don’t think the Covid-deniers did miss that; it’s everyone else who failed to see the issue. Opposition to lockdowns was the single thing that united all the various types of skeptics.
Lewis2
1mo ago
While I won’t deny that, I’d rather put it that it’s an easy thing for anyone who saw the competency with which almost all Western governments handled Covid to say. After living through 2020–2022, do you really trust the CDC, the WHO, the federal and most state governments, the major medical journals, or any other group to get this one right?
Lewis2
1mo ago
At this point, the medical establishment and government don’t (or at least, I really, really hope they don’t) have enough credibility left to enforce anti-pandemic measures. Even if avian flu does become a human pandemic and is widely acknowledged as such, it’s probably just going to have to rip through the population like any other transmittable disease. Those who get sick, get sick; those who die, die; and those who survive eventually reach herd immunity.
Lewis2
1mo ago
What changed a week or so ago? Are you talking about the interest rate drop?
Lewis2
1mo ago
Not thinking to grab your social security card and birth certificate I fully understand, but how would you possibly leave behind your driver’s license? Do you not keep it in your wallet, phone case, car, or some other similar place? I honestly couldn’t tell you the last time I left home without my driver’s license, since it never leaves my wallet.
Lewis2
1mo ago
At least one such troll keeps a list.
Lewis2
1mo ago
Isn’t permanent demographic change already inevitable? In 1950, the United States was 89.5% white, 10% black, and 0.5% other. By 2000, the U.S. was 75.1% white, 12.3% black, and 12.6% other. As of 2020, the United States is 61.6% white (57.8% non-Hispanic white), 12.4% black, and 26% other. You can see stats on other years here. Today, every age group under 25 is now less than 50% non-Hispanic white. There’s no reversing that.
Lewis2
1mo ago
I can’t tell if you’re being serious. Little Caesar’s is by far the most revolting pizza I’ve ever tasted. Pizza Hut, Papa John’s, Domino’s, Sbarro—hell, even Great Value frozen pizzas—are all far superior, even though I wouldn’t rank of them as great pizza either.
Lewis2
1mo ago
No, it's not coercion.
I was responding to the “make him/me” in your previous comment. I think I sort of get where you’re coming from now, though it still seems like a much more power-focused dynamic than I’d have expected.
He'll go along with it for a while
Doesn’t this contradict your initial post (“Gay dating today in America is pretty frustrating because the vast majority of men do not see themselves as alpha”) and even the end of this last post (“The problem is that today most men never achieve the confidence to top”)? Or was I misreading you? I thought you were using “alpha” and “beta” as synonyms for “top/active” and “bottom/passive.”
Incidentally, I’d like to second doglatine. This isn’t a subject I would have guessed I’d have found interesting, but it turns out that I do. Kudos.
Lewis2
1mo ago
So in the gay dating world, would it be fair to say that there is an element of—is coercion the right word?—when it comes to sex? Like in the ideal world, you’d wrestle and then the loser would have to pleasure the winner, rather like the loser when two boys wrestle might be forced to eat grass? If so, that is… rather different than what I would have expected. It sounds rather like the dynamic feminists imagine when they say that all sex/rape is just about power.
Also, though I’ve never considered it before, I think I see the cause of the problem right away. Presumably most gay men are gay because they enjoy being the receptive partner, leaving a dearth of men who enjoy being the active partner (possibly more of whom are bi than gay?). Is that a fair assessment?
Lewis2
1mo ago
BTW deaconess is not really a monastic thing
That depends entirely on your tradition. Lutheran deaconesses traditionally (and in the case of at least one deaconess house, still do) live together in community, wear habits, take the honorific “Sister,” and vow to remain celibate for as long as they remain deaconesses.
Lewis2
1mo ago
I found this an interesting read, but I’m a little puzzled about the alpha vs. beta distinction you’re making. At the start, you make it sound like the alpha is just the bigger, taller, and more muscular partner, and the beta is the shorter and weaker one, but later on, you seem to be hinting at a psychological dimension as well. In day to day life, that would make sense. I’ve certainly known men who are physically not all that impressive but who exude confidence and authority, just as I’ve known men who could beat most people to a bloody pulp but who are nevertheless obvious betas (and there are plenty of men who are dominant in one social group and passive in another). Are you saying that in the gay dating world, the physically weak but self-confident and authoritative men should be submissive to anyone who’s physically stronger—that it just comes down to brute strength? And so the problem is just that too many physically imposing specimens are too meek for their own good? If so, how do you square that with younger men preferring an older partner, given that a 55-year-old is statistically quite likely to be weaker than a 25-year-old? (Also, surely that can’t actually be true, can it? “Older men, up to around age 55, are perceived as more attractive to… other younger men.” I was under the impression that youth is almost always the single most highly-prized characteristic among gay men. I swear I’ve heard that dating is almost impossible after 30 for most gay men, since everyone is always chasing the 20-year-olds.)
Also, with regard to the birth order effect,
The cause of this is unknown but I wonder if part of it is a socialization, wherein younger boys surrounded by more dominant/aggressive males can not as easily adopt heterosexuality as the more alpha males around them.
My understanding is that the effect holds true even when the younger brothers are raised apart (when, e.g., the youngest was adopted), which would point to a biological cause in utero, rather than anything from socialization.
Alexander, of course. By 2028, his time in California will have tipped him over the edge.
More options
Context Copy link