Totalitarianit
No bio...
User ID: 3448
To me, this speaks to the size of each group's mainstream influence (or the percent at which they are represented in media) rather than their actual size. Factoring that in makes this sort of mistake far more understandable. They don't know the raw numbers, but they see the representation distribution throughout the mainstream, which is an inaccurate depiction of the country's true demographic. On the other hand, minorities may recognize the representation they get in media, but then they walk outside, or go to the grocery store, or church, or anywhere else in public and see that they, in fact, are still a minority.
The problem isn't just speech, although that is part of it. It's also the fragmented culture and supercharged social media algorithms that allow bad-faith actors to exploit our free speech norms that undermine the society that protects them in the first place. It's a constant stress test for free speech. It's not really a healthy culture anymore. It's hyper-partisan factions or individuals, often times anti-Western ones, operating freely within a cultural bubble that was designed for good-faith debate and disagreement without totally trashing our society. We do not maintain that bubble anymore. We either need to get back to maintaining that bubble by enforcing a double standard against foreign, anti-Western dissenters, or we can slide toward some form of soft authoritarianism just to keep the wheels on. We are trying both it seems:
• The Dems and the left played their totalitarianism-light method by policing speech and suppressing right leaning ideas to achieve a more egalitarian one-size fits all environment, aka equity.
• The Republicans and the right are more keen on re-establishing and applying a double standard when it comes to Westerners and Western ideals in general. They're especially this way when it comes to Israel-Palestine.
I believe both societal trajectories are authoritarian, except one prioritizes the well being of its people while the other prioritizes an idea that ultimately suppresses its people. I prefer the double standard method. It's imperfect, but it establishes a national identity and what is and is not accepted on a cultural level. I do find it highly irritating though that this double standard is applied selectively for one ethnic group and one country that isn't this one.
Totalitarianit
9d ago
...the iron fist in the rainbow glove
I like this. I'll probably steal it and use it the next time I get in a political argument.
Totalitarianit
9d ago
I had a pretty surface level comment about this kind of narrative pushing in the last thread. The scope of my comment leaned more into journalists latching onto stories that fit their narrative, but your comment talks more about these streaming services pushing a narrative which I find to be just as important, maybe even more important. A lot of these newer shows produced by these platforms are really just delivery mechanisms for socially approved moral instruction, particularly when it comes to social issues. It's a pipeline of content designed (whether intentionally or not) to reaffirm progressive narratives, not challenge them.
I haven't seen the show, but I just read the CNN article about it. Like you said I think there is a recognition that there is a problem. They really try to explain its roots being mostly due to social media, which I agree is a major contributor, but they sort of leave out the passive, yet continued attempts at the feminization of the males in our society so that their violent tendencies can be increasingly shifted to the more indirect emotional and psychological kind. In this show, the female utilizes her ability to maximize psychological harm without being too direct, while the male causes direct harm. One is socially accepted and media-protected, the other is criminalized.
What is the message? Based on the article, it seems like the show creator is trying to strike some balance between the two types of aggression (direct-masculine and indirect-feminine) and how social media (which empowers feminine aggression) is a major problem. No disagreement there. He really does seem to want to help the younger generations, but seeing how we all have to tip toe around certain realities, it makes addressing the male "problem" a difficult one.
The optimistic take would be that the "adults in the room" are recognizing the problem, and are laundering it as a white issue to make it more palatable for left-lib sensibilities. But I don't believe it.
I do believe this except I find this delivery method to be unacceptable, and, based on Western countries' current voting trends, I'm not the only one. People are becoming quite tired of whitey being the face of certain negative trends, and that has been expressed many times (see Brexit and the elections of Donald Trump).
Totalitarianit
12d ago
Yes. Effective policing runs the unavoidable risk of a copper billy-clubbing or shooting a black person on video. Then mainstream media covers it, college campuses and urban areas protest over it, and our streaming services make movies, shows, and documentaries about it. Then Democrats swoop in like heroes to implement policy that will kneecap law enforcement, and the societal burden of impulsive criminals will shift back to law abiding citizens, a lot of whom voted for Democrats in the first place.
That said, I blame our media apparatus and academics far more than I blame Democrats. Dems generally just lick their finger and stick it in the air to see which way the cultural wind is blowing and they position their sails accordingly. Journalists, on the other hand, dedicate their lives to exposing unfairness; except the unfairness they uncover almost exclusively involves the kind that benefits their belief that current power systems must be dismantled. What they rarely consider is the new unfairness that emerges when their version of justice is implemented. When equity replaces order the burden doesn’t vanish, it just gets redistributed and usually onto the very people who can't afford to carry it.
Totalitarianit
26d ago
I think almost everything you say about China is true, except for this:
If China moves to take it, there's a very good chance they start with ballistic missile strikes on Japan.
I would be surprised if China took this approach. I think they're just biding their time and patiently waiting to outgrow the US to the point that the gap in military capability and logistics insofar as it relates to Taiwan will be too obvious for the US to want to defend it. The U.S. is already making moves to secure semiconductor production at home in order to wind down the strategic importance of Taiwan, so the writing is starting to be put on the wall.
There's also a strong likelihood that when Democrats come back into power, they'll have another Mark Milley type chairman who will tuck his tail and submit to the will of China. I think China is banking on the cost-benefit calculus becoming too lopsided for the US, and in this scenario all they have to do is wait it out a little longer.
I’d be interested to read any argument against this scenario. I’m curious if there are angles I’m not seeing.
Totalitarianit
28d ago
Ideological victory is upstream from other victories. Slashing at the bureaucracy, even if it is symbolic, it at least a step in the direction of dismantling certain entrenched ideas. I would choose a bureaucracy and institutions that were constructed in the same way if they simply leaned in the other direction ideologically. I'd choose it over either side right now. That does not seem to be an option though. Next best option is to root for this administration to do as much damage as possible to the progressive left. Chemotherapy.
Totalitarianit
28d ago
As long as they continue to attack the neo-lib blob, then I'm good with it. Everything else was just wishful thinking. I'm good with (or at least tolerant of) many kinds of Democratic plans toward the budget, or taxes, or green energy. I'm not good with progressive totalitarianism and demonization of everything this country was 15+ years ago. The suicidal introspection embraced by Democrats and the left is insufferable, but they won't budge. It's behind why so many people are continuously willing to roll dice with Trump. So down we go I suppose.
Totalitarianit
1mo ago
We probably agree on what the cause is. My emphasis on their when talking about Europeans is due to the type of immigration rather than me casting any blame at them for trying to fix their impending demographic problem. In the U.S., much of our immigration comes from Latin America which is largely Christian, with cultural values that overlap with American society. Europe on the other hand has imported large numbers of immigrants from cultures with very different legal, religious, and social norms. Both the U.S. and Europe face this degenerative population disease, but Europe’s prescription has made assimilation much harder and fueled deeper cultural fragmentation.
Totalitarianit
1mo ago
Are you talking about developed countries' dwindling populations and their attempts at alleviating that problem?
Totalitarianit
1mo ago
I agree with the trajectory, but I disagree with your claim on what's causing it, at least from the American perspective. I think it has more to do with some combination of a geopolitical changing of the tides and the fairly obvious cultural suicide that Europe has allowed to occur with their mass immigration.
Totalitarianit
1mo ago
This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think you are correct, but as I said I think conflict is inevitable whether the sides prophesize about it or not. The extent and magnitude of conflict can be mitigated but it cannot be avoided. I don't want to project any sort of tough guy attitude, or the idea that people should engage in conflict. I also don't want to promote any sort of paranoid conflict theory. I just believe that circumstances will eventually dictate that conflict happens, even if no one actively wants it.
I am completely on board with mitigation, along with more people embracing a mistake-theorist lean over the conflict theory lean. I just have a fundamental belief that some of what occurs, even conflict, is a matter of circumstance and our nature which are simply baked into reality. It seems to me that the dominant Western policy mindset is heavily saturated with mistake-theory thinking, which ironically has created an environment that’s actually more prone to conflict. Some of these left-leaning policies and ideas (particularly the social ones) are driven by utopian assumptions that ignore structural realities. The effect that has had on our institutions and social cohesion have become pretty evident in my opinion.
It’s not the best analogy, but I always think of it: When shit was hitting the fan in 2020 people made a run for bulk items, especially toilet paper. It was absurd to watch people panic buy toilet paper of all things, but it didn’t matter how rational or calm any individual person was. Once enough people started stockpiling the shelves were empty and at that point even the most reasonable, community-minded person had to join in if they wanted to avoid being left without.
The point I’m trying to make is that some conflicts work the same way. You can personally favor cooperation, good faith, and compromise but once a critical mass of people (on either side) start treating the situation as a conflict, you’re pulled into that dynamic whether you want to be or not.
You don’t have to want conflict, or even believe in conflict theory, for conflict to find you. It’s not always a prophecy sometimes it’s just how cascading events play out when people act in self-interest under uncertainty.
Totalitarianit
1mo ago
I think mistake theory more specifically applies to current progressives and the social left, whereas conflict theory generally applies more to conservatives and the right. In reality, both exist. I believe conservatives are more correct in their approach to the inescapable reality that conflict is inevitable. Even the social left with their utopia-seeking plans often concede that they will need to get through some sort of conflict before they can implement their utopia. With that said, I am not a huge fan of the right wing segment that seems to happily embrace conflict.
Overall, it is a mixture of the theories. Conflict isn’t the result of some grand evil plan, but a natural consequence of competing interests, resources, and shifting circumstances. It is unavoidable. Progressives really buy into the idea that they get a get out of moral jail free card if their intentions are good, even if their ideas create problems. Conservatives, on the other hand, largely accept the unavoidable and attempt to address issues in a realistic, sometimes amoral way that does not interface well into the liberal-progressive framework that is deeply programmed into most of us Westerners. You cannot win rhetorically as a conservative once you start admitting what harsh reality needs to be done to fix problems. The only way to win as a conservative currently is to let the bad ideas of the left reach their logical conclusions, then present those receipts to the public after the damage has been done.
Mistake theory definitely explains the left's drawbacks in the current era, and I think it greatly affected the 2024 election.
I think the cultural poison that has spread across Europe is a Western problem more than it is solely an American one. Obviously, Neo-lib American influence played a major hand through the things you mentioned, but the progressive policy that our annoying American neo-libs try to implement are usually modeled after some European country's system. European countries have leftist policies that are highly touted by the American neo-lib establishment. I think it's more of a symbiotic relationship between European and American progressives that is being characterized by a lot of people, including @anti_dan, as a conflict between Europe and America. That's not how I see it though. It's an ideological war between progressivism, liberalism, and conservatism that affects all Western countries. We're having the same issues with Canada.
Progressivism gained tremendous momentum over the past 15-20 years because it was protected by the ideals and moral framework of Western liberalism. Liberalism could never properly defend or maintain itself, and once it became fully embraced it was destined to be consumed by whatever trending illiberal ideology the masses would be most tolerant of. That ideology was progressivism, and it has effectively Trojan Horsed itself into Western society and its institutions. Its supporters have leveraged those institutions in a way that proliferates their ideas and oppresses their dissidents and ideological opponents. It has gotten to the point that political moderates (mostly liberals) have started to be negatively affected.
We all get confused by making it about countries, or race, or income. These claims aren't entirely untrue. They have their own share of problems and issues to contend with, but they're less true right now than the suicidal, progressive ideology that has captured the Western mind.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
The idea of fixing systems, whether they be bureaucracies within the government or institutions outside of it, would ideally start on a very fundamental level. That said, I'm not convinced the anti-progressive or moderate segment in our country has that ability right now. The progressive movement maintains that ability because, as you mentioned, they still have the institutions. Things like Entertainment, Higher Ed, etc. aren't conservative in the slightest. They're not even really moderate. As a result, our conveyor belt of future government workers all align themselves on one side. Therefore, the notion of operating within these systems that progressives have taken over (and will continue to replenish) doesn’t sit well with many people, myself included. It seems harder to win that way.
I will acknowledge that what matters to a lot of people are the services that are being provided by the government, and that some people really need those services. I can see how Elon and Trump proposing and implementing drastic measures is concerning to those people, but I still believe the goal is efficiency, not pure destruction. It's fat trimming, except this time it may be done with a cleaver instead of a fillet knife because the fillet knife just doesn't seem to work. I'm also not interested in making political opponents suffer for the sake of making them suffer. I am interested in strategies that will actually address a problem without getting bogged down in the system that is designed to bog things down.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
I think some people would disagree with it, either because their livelihood directly depends on it or because their livelihood indirectly depends on it (see Democrat politicians). Between those two types, there will be enough squeaky wheels to conflate the real issue of administrative bloat and Elon & crew's mishandlings of its reduction. I think its coverage and the reactions will largely depend on how badly the Trump Admin and Elon manage to piss everyone off in the moderate camp. Your concern about them replacing one biased regime for another is fair, just so long as you can openly admit that the one being ousted was also biased.
I doubt the goal is to weed anything out in a surgical manner. In fact, I think the idea is to not get into the weeds, but simply cut right through them.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
My assumption is that a rapidly growing number of people now see that while some government agencies or departments initially have clear or beneficial missions, their focus shifts from fulfilling their original purpose to ensuring their own survival. In other words, the bureaucracy is gonna bureaucracy.
Inefficiency? Check
Mission Creep? Check
Ideological capture? Check
Resistance to Change? Check
At some point, the concern goes from serving public interest to self-interest. I get it. No person in these agencies is willingly going to sacrifice their own job for the betterment of society. They've already convinced themselves that their position and agency is incredibly important. I would too. That being said, these opinions should not matter to the public. The results matter, and the administrative bloat has become absurd.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
The Definitely not Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Department. It'd be funnier to me if these kinds of tactics didn't work as well as they do, but plausible deniability doesn't even have to pass the "plausible" threshold anymore.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
As these companies continue to move away from DEI, and if it becomes increasingly apparent to the general public that it didn't work, how will the vocal proponents, like Mark Cuban, attempt to shift the narrative to avoid admitting they were wrong? The most surprising outcome is someone like him admitting fault, or that he was mistaken. My guess is that it will be some combination of "It wasn't properly implemented." or "It works perfectly fine where I invested." or "People didn't give it the chance it deserved."
Whatever the case, I suspect the Mea Culpas will be few and far between, and the deflections will be many. These people are masters of self-preservation.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
Your entire reply to me is a series of examples of you demonstrating the exact point I was making about retconning. I'm not even sure if your comment is real.
I typed out a longer reply, but I don't think I want to have this back and forth. You make patently false statements and you have a petulant Redditor tone that I loathe.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
If, all things considered, you preferred Trump to Harris, notwithstanding Trump’s election lies, encouragement of violence, and promises to let the perpetrators off the hook, then that’s your right.
On Elections: Kamala Harris became the presidential nominee without without participating in or winning any primary elections. They essentially just made her the nominee and everyone kind of went along with it.
One encouragement of violence: Kamala in 2020 during the riots - "They're not gonna stop. And this is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not gonna stop. And everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day. And that should be—everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not gonna let up, and they should not, and we should not."
On promises to let perpetrators off the hook: In 2020, Kamala Harris spoke to Jacob Blake on the phone and visited Kenosha where she called for systemic change and justice and condemned the police shooting of Blake. Blake was a felon who resisted arrest, then reached for the floorboard of his car where a knife was located while police were right behind him. Back in June of that year, she told people to chip in to the Minnesota Freedom Fund that was posting bail for protestors and rioters. This year, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 death row inmates.
But what disturbs me is the extent to which the entire conservative movement has retconned not just the events of four years ago, but their own reactions to those events, such that these days, to be disturbed by them is considered some form of lib hysteria." At what point are Trump's allies tacitly seconding accusations that Trump is an authoritarian and his "movement" a cult of personality, by treating him as though the accusations are true?
It is true that the conservative movement has attempted to retcon plenty of easily-identifiable and unsavory behavior, and that Trump is a justifiable lightning rod for many of it. What bothers people like myself about the other side though is that same lack of accountability for bad policy, but with an extra layer that involves them aligning with progressives who are committed to unraveling the culture of Western society. This sort of thing is occurring outside of Washington too, which is what makes it so much worse. All of our institutions have been heavily captured by this brand of progressivism and it has swept across the country and contributed to what I see as this unraveling.
Another thing that bothers me about these progressives is the real-time "retconning" or redefining that occurs when another progressive policy or movement is injected into the mainstream. There's always this air of plausible deniability or deflection when they start doing something. "You see, this thing we're doing, we're not actually doing it." or "Why do you care so much?" "DEI isn't prioritizing one race over another." To them, an action has a different definition depending who has committed it. When a conservative slaps you in the face, it's a slap. A progressive, on the other hand, strikes you in the face with the palm of their hand in defense against oppression.
It has been the constant play on words, the effective racialism or group scapegoating, the overt thumb on the scales in favor of "marginalized groups," the self-critiquing of our own traditions and not others, etc. Overall, it's these actions and arguments that all seem to stem from an "idea" or branch of critical theory that has attached itself to the brains of Western liberals. It's that "idea" that I'm against.
So, I think the difference between us might be that, for me, the negatives associated with Trump and conservatives are less significant than the broader impact of that "idea" on our society today.
Totalitarianit
2mo ago
The Indians don't have any of that sympathy, lack subtlety...
But I would agree that Indians seem poised to reintroduce racism into the Western psyche as greater contact only seems to lead to growing the backlash and a willing audience for things like this.
This reminds of something that happened in 2021 on Twitter. I think it speaks to your point almost exactly. I pulled this directly from a website that talks about it:
On September 26th, 2021, Twitter[2] user LILAVYVERT quote tweeted a TikTok video shared via a tweet[3] posted two days prior. The video shows a nightclub somewhere in India where many young, Indian people are dancing to "When that one song that comes on in the club." LILAVYVERT quote tweeted it, using the phrase "I know it smell crazy in there". The tweet (shown below) received roughly 51,600 likes over the course of one month.
LILAVYVERT's tweet, however, also received roughly 23,700 quote tweets over the course of one month. The quote tweets mostly revolved around LILAVYVERT's statement allegedly being racist. LILAVYVERT received the most amount of backlash from people of Indian descent. For instance, Twitter[4] user @pinkfr1day tweeted, "they going slur for slur in the quotes wow" and received roughly 22,600 likes. This tweet commented on and poked fun at the Indians and the African-Americans in the quote tweets and replies being racist or derogatory to each other.
The sheer volume of racist tweets coming from Indians was like nothing I'd ever seen before. Since certain speech on online was pretty heavily policed at that time, being able to see those tweets making their rounds was very cathartic. It's like the powers that be at Twitter couldn't handle it all. It was hilarious because the pure unfiltered racist vitriol coming from some of these people was so beyond what was normally accused of "racism" in the West that people were borderline speechless. It's precisely their lack of subtlety and the willingness of Westerners to tolerate it that aligns with your point.
This would be a great Halloween costume if it were more popular. I could totally see myself running around at party dressed up like this and screaming that over and over.
More options
Context Copy link