AuthorTopic: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)  (Read 5056 times)

Offline Surly1

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15303
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #150 on: March 16, 2019, 07:37:02 PM »
Let's put this in perspective. In trying to contextualize the oeuvre of Dave Rubin, I came across an article by Ezra Klein who locates him as part of YouTube prophets and avatars, whom we've already seen posted here, who populate the "intellectual dark web," the reactionary right, and benefit from YouTube’s algorithms to build a new right.

YouTube’s recommendation engine follows the digital footsteps we all make. And it sees connections, not context. It knows when audiences repeatedly come together, but cannot grasp not why. And predicts what they’re likely to view next. Thus are the "mainstreams" of conservative thought is brought into proximity to the far right fringe, where Ashvin lives.

As Klein has it, "Many of these YouTubers are less defined by any single ideology than they are by a “reactionary” position: a general opposition to feminism, social justice, or left-wing politics." Even though they are hardly monolithic. On YouTube, tomorrow’s politics are emerging today.

Klein also seems to get Ashvin's intellectual lodestar, Jordan Peterson, correct, and identifies him as a classic reactionary.

Long, but a good read.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17883330/dave-rubin-ben-shapiro-youtube-reactionary-right-peterson

The rise of YouTube’s reactionary right

How demographic change and YouTube’s algorithms are building a new right.

By Ezra Klein@ezraklein 
Javier Zarracina/Vox

Last week, I tweeted out a few links to pieces of media analysis I’d found interesting. One was to danah boyd’s excellent speech on media manipulation, strategic amplification, and responsible journalism. Another was to BuzzFeed reporter Charlie Warzel’s newsletter describing how a recognition of the alt-right’s media manipulation techniques had changed his reporting. A third was to Rebecca Lewis’s new Data & Society report mapping the rise and functioning of YouTube’s “reactionary right,” which I described as “one of the must underestimated forces in politics right now.”

It was that third one that attracted some controversy. The Data & Society report is trying to trace the social and algorithmic boundaries of an emergent media ecosystem, but a lot of the folks swept up in the report are angry about it, and angry at me for linking to it. For instance, YouTube personality Dave Rubin tweeted:

Hi , wanna explain to me how gay married, pro choice, pro-pot, against death penalty, for reforming prisons/drug sentencing, is part of reactionary right? (As you and rest of mainstream slide into irrelevancy you did get the “underestimated forces” part right, though.)

I’ll take the bait, because the underlying issue here is important to understanding politics in 2018. We’re in a period of massive demographic and social change, and all that change is creating a powerful backlash. The coalition being built by that backlash, the coalition Rubin is a part of, is best understood as a reactionary movement because, well, that’s what it is — a movement united by opposition to changes it loathes.

Reactionary, in this context, isn’t a slur; it’s a lineage, and it has a specific meaning that’s useful in understanding this group. And whether you support legal pot has nothing to do with it.

The intellectual dark web, the reactionary right, and the difficult work of mapping new ideologies

Let’s start in familiar territory.

In the context of American politics, I’m on the left. That’s also true for my colleague Matt Yglesias, who has extremely similar views to me on taxation and health care but extremely different views on veganism, which is an important political commitment to me but not to him. Stranger yet, it’s also true for the hosts of Chapo Trap House, a left-wing podcast that loathes me even though our substantive differences would look modest to a libertarian. And it’s arguably true for all kinds of lefty fringe types whose views I’d find abhorrent (anti-vaxxers, say).

If someone wrote a report trying to map the modern left, you’d quickly come up with a list that connects me to people I like but disagree with on some issues, people I dislike, people who dislike me, and people whom I don’t even think of as in my universe.

Which is all to say that mapping broad ideologies is an odd and imprecise business, and it’s particularly odd to the people caught up in it, who experience the fractiousness of their side at least as much as they experience its cohesion.

Lewis’s report is trying to map the emergence of a new coalition on the right, one driven by a reactionary impulse and centered on YouTube. If you’re over 30 and don’t use YouTube much, it’s almost impossible to convey how central the platform is to young people. But spend much time talking to college students about where they get their political information and you’ll find YouTube is dominant; what’s happening on the platform is important to our political future, and badly undercovered.

Lewis is interested in how this ecosystem is being shaped by both social and algorithmic dynamics. The social side is familiar: Hosts appears on each other’s shows, do events together, and cross-pollinate their audiences. The algorithmic side is less familiar: YouTube’s powerful recommendation engine learns who’s connected to whom, adds in a preference for extreme and outlandish content, and thus pushes the entire ecosystem in a more radical direction. (Controversially, Lewis suggests YouTube should cut the most extreme of these shows off from monetization channels; this part of the report is the least detailed and, in my view, the least convincing, so I’m not going to spend time on it here.)

Mapping this network carries the consequence of connecting people to voices they’d rather not be connected to — Ben Shapiro, a mainstream conservative, is angry at his inclusion. The shows he regularly appears on also host much more fringe figures, and this puts him a couple degrees out from white supremacists on Lewis’s map. But this is part of Lewis’s point: This world, in a way that’s unusual, has extremely porous borders between the mainstream and the extreme, and that’s a consequence of both ideological intention and algorithmic design.

One way to understand the Data & Society report is to see it as another cut at what Bari Weiss described in the New York Times (again naming Rubin and Shapiro, though omitting a lot of the more extreme figures identified by Lewis) as the “intellectual dark web.”Weiss’s piece described something real and important, but it had trouble defining their ideology, in large part because it was overly credulous. Here, for instance, is her explanation of what unites this community:

They all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere.

This is definitely what the members of this community say about themselves. But spend some time listening to Rubin call progressivism “a mental disorder,” or emailing with Sam Harris — a New Atheist author and podcaster in this community — and you find the commitment to civility or even debate is pretty thin. Similarly, this movement’s vaunted commitment to free speech looks a bit shallow after you receive a letter from Jordan Peterson threatening a lawsuit because you ran an interview with a scholar who criticized him. And, of course, everycommunity believes they’re the ones who prize facts over feelings.

But if Weiss was fuzzy on what ties her subjects together, she did have a criticism of them, and it’s one that’s relevant to Lewis’s report: She worried that members of the IDW repeatedly provide platforms to “genuinely bad people” — listen to these shows, she warned, and “you’ll find alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneux and Milo Yiannopoulos and conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich (the #PizzaGate huckster) and Alex Jones (the Sandy Hook shooting denier).”

Lewis’s piece is best understood as the inverse of Weiss’s piece. Where Weiss drew a circle around the most respectable subgroup of this world, used their preferred term for themselves, and worried over the unsavory characters they were associating with, Lewis sees a broader “reactionary right” that includes the IDWers but also “the genuinely bad people” they’re connected to. (For the record, I think her report would’ve benefited from further breaking this world into typologies; you can see one cut at that here.)

There is, as advertised, a lot of different kinds of thinkers and a lot of very real disagreement in this emergent coalition; the question, as in any ideological group, is what unites them, what gives them the common ground atop which they have conversations and build audiences. This is Lewis’s key paragraph, emphasis mine:

The boundaries between different political groups of influencers and the ideological positions they promote are often slippery. Many identify themselves primarily as libertarians or conservatives. Others self-advertise as white nationalists. Simultaneously, these influencers often connect with one another across ideological lines. At times, influencers collaborate to the point that ideological differences become impossible to take at face value. For example, self-identified conservatives may disavow far-right extremism while also hosting explicit white nationalists on their channels. Within the [network], this collaboration generates a cross-promotion of ideas that forms a broader, intertextual common ground. Many of these YouTubers are less defined by any single ideology than they are by a “reactionary” position: a general opposition to feminism, social justice, or left-wing politics.

Lewis’s argument, which I agree with, is that the core, unshakable agreement uniting the reactionary right is their intense loathing of “the social justice left,” of political correctness, of threats to free speech as they define it.

Ideological coalitions depend on the agreements you emphasize and the disagreements you live with. Sen. Elizabeth Warren supports single-payer health care and Sen. Mark Warner doesn’t, but they’re still both Democrats. If Warner were anti-abortion, had signed Grover Norquist’s tax pledge, and had endorsed Donald Trump, he’d be out of the party. When you’re trying to understand an ideological coalition, you’re looking for those lines.

If you spend much time listening to the reactionary right, you find that line cuts across social justice issues. You can hold a lot of different opinions on the economy, on Trump, on same-sex marriage, on atheism, and still be part of this community. It’s much more accepting of differing views on health care, the role of the state, and taxation than the modern Republican Party. But you can’t be in sympathy with the SJWs.

On the left, the reverse is increasingly true. The unbridgeable divides today, the ones that seem to define which side you’re really on, revolve around issues of race, gender, identity, and equality. While I see a lot of angry arguments about deficits within the Democratic coalition, I don’t know of any congressional Democrats who are against same-sex marriage, vocally skeptical of Black Lives Matter, and in favor of tight restrictions on immigration — even though those were common positions among elected Democrats in the aughts.

Trump is also a manifestation of this shift. In 2012, the Republican Party wanted to compromise on culture and immigration to win on economics; Trump dominated the primary by insisting on the opposite formulation. He cares little about entitlement spending but deeply about NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.

Back in April, I interviewed Lilliana Mason, a political scientist who specializes in identity formation. “Our party divisions have always been moving,” she said. “Sometimes we fight over economics, sometimes we fight over culture, but the line is always moving.” And right now, she continued, “there could be a real new partisan cleavage we are trying to organize around.” Perhaps, she suggested, the next political cleavage “is a social justice cleavage.”

I think she’s right, and one place you see it is on YouTube, where tomorrow’s politics are emerging today.

Reactionary movements, then and now

This brings us to Rubin’s challenge: How can he, or anyone, support same-sex marriage and legal pot and be described as a member of the reactionary right? Rubin is libertarian-ish, and certainly not an establishment Republican, so how could Lewis group him, and others like him, under this label?

Behind Rubin’s complaint is a common misunderstanding of what reactionary movements are. In his book The Reactionary Mind, the political theorist Corey Robin writes:

Far from yielding a knee-jerk defense of an unchanging old regime or a thoughtful traditionalism, the reactionary imperative presses conservatism in two rather different directions: first, to a critique and reconfiguration of the old regime; and second, to an absorption of the ideas and tactics of the very revolution or reform it opposes. What conservatism seeks to accomplish through that reconfiguration of the old and absorption of the new is to make privilege popular, to transform a tottering old regime into a dynamic, ideologically coherent movement of the masses.

Put differently, reactionary movements have two parts: The first is an extraction of the important, and now imperiled, power structures in the status quo, even as a lot of the ideological baggage that has endangered the status quo is jettisoned. The second is a recasting of a movement that is about defending an existing social order into a movement that appears revolutionary and vibrant on its own terms.

The YouTube right has all these hallmarks. It brands itself as edgy, punkish, dangerous, free-thinking. You get a lot of stuff like this:

These new voices aren’t like those stodgy Bush-era Republicans. They smoke weed! They take psychedelics! They support same-sex marriage! As Lewis writes:

These influencers are adopting identity signals affiliated with previous countercultures, but the actual content of their arguments seeks to reinforce dominant cultural racial and gendered hierarchies. Their reactionary politics and connections to traditional modes of power show that what they are most often fighting for is actually the status quo—a return to traditional gender and racial norms, or a belief in the individual over an understanding of group oppression.

Watch Rubin’s softball interview with Milo about his dislike for feminism to see this in action. The aesthetics of the discussion are edgy and interesting; the content of it is a banal defense of societal structures that leave women paid far less than men; you could hear it made with more detail and rigor at any right-wing think tank in Washington:

Jordan Peterson is probably this movement’s leading intellectual; he’s one of Rubin’s most frequent guests, and he has Rubin open for him on his speaking tours. There is much that makes Peterson’s thinking interesting and unusual. He’s a psychologist who’s turned Jungian interpretation of mythic archetypes into an idiosyncratic self-help philosophy for a secular age. But when it comes to politics, he’s recasting a defense of traditional hierarchies and inequalities as a brave stand for free thinking and individual rights.

Peterson fears that gender and racial equity movements will go too far in challenging the natural order of things and destroy what made Western civilization great. What the world needs is intellectual rebels willing to shatter the social justice consensus, stare down the PC police, and say what no one else will:

You can love Peterson’s work or hate it, but it’s classic reactionary thinking.

Reactionary movements emerge most powerfully in periods of change and upheaval. As Robin writes:

Conservatism “becomes conscious and reflective when other ways of life and thought appear on the scene, against which it is compelled to take up arms in the ideological struggle.” Where the traditionalist can take the objects of desire for granted—he can enjoy them as if they are at hand because they are at hand—the conservative cannot. He seeks to enjoy them precisely as they are being—or have been—taken away. If he hopes to enjoy them again, he must contest their divestment in the public realm.

So why is this tendency emergent now? What is it reacting to?

My long answer to this question is to go read “White threat in a browning America.” The short version is we’re in a period of massive demographic and social change. The power structures really are in flux. We just had a black president and now we have a white backlash president, the #MeToo movement is transforming workplaces, college campuses are majority female, and most infants under 3 are nonwhite, to name just a few of the ongoing revolutions. This is a lot of change, all at once.

The PC wars are downstream from these upheavals. As marginalized groups gain power, they make claims. They want resources they were denied, positions they’ve been excluded from, social mores that make them comfortable, a discourse that represents them, a recognition of the ways in which society has been built atop an unjust foundation. Some of this is easy enough for society to grant, but much of it threatens the majority’s status, power, resources, or simply its sense of security. Action like this creates, well, reaction — and reactionary movements.

Politics in the age of algorithms

If all Lewis’s report had done was outline some commonalities between the sprawling network of right-leaning YouTube hosts, that would have been interesting, but it wouldn’t have attracted much notice. But the core of her paper is about how this new ideology is shaping, and being shaped, by the social media platforms it operates on.

Lewis’s interest in Rubin, for instance, is in the way his show acts as a node between the most respectable side of the YouTube right (Shapiro) and its more fringe elements (Stefan Molyneux). And then, as Rubin’s audience is exposed to Molyneux, they get to the even more extreme figures Molyneux features on his show. The paper is full of node maps showing the connections between various hosts and the paths by which someone who begins in a relatively mainstream place can quickly get carried into deep depths of misogyny and racism.

It’s worth being careful with these diagrams. For instance, W. Kamau Bell has interviewed Richard Spencer, and I’ve interviewed W. Kamau Bell, so I can also be framed as two degrees from Richard Spencer. You need more context than a node map. What Lewis establishes in detail in the report, however, is a cooperative ecosystem in which key players act as conveyors from the mainstream right to the extreme right by conducting credulous, friendly interviews with both. Rubin is one of them.

Rubin protests, reasonably, that he hosts a talk show, and he doesn’t endorse all the views aired on it. But Lewis isn’t saying that Rubin agrees with everyone who appears on his show. She’s saying that he’s part of a social and algorithmic network in which he’s cross-pollinating audiences both intentionally, in terms of whom he has on and what shows he goes on, and unintentionally, in terms of what the algorithm learns to show his followers. And it’s not just him: there’s a whole ecosystem of people alongside him doing the same thing.

A key question as movements develop is who gets excluded. William F. Buckley famously fought to drive the John Birch Society out of polite conservatism. But this is a community that delights in pushing boundaries, in presenting itself as the last place you can hear the views that the PC police are stifling, if only so you can reject them for yourself. That leads to them proudly hosting fringe and extreme voices both because it fits their ideological self-conception and because it’s good programming.

YouTube’s recommendation engine, meanwhile, is following all these digital footsteps. It sees connections, not context. It knows when audiences repeatedly come together, not why they come together. And it guesses what they’re likely to click on next.

The digital scholar Zeynep Tufekci has written about YouTube’s role as an engine of radicalization. She retells watching Donald Trump videos and then being pointed toward “white supremacist rants, Holocaust denials and other disturbing content.” Watching Hillary Clinton rallies led her to “arguments about the existence of secret government agencies and allegations that the United States government was behind the attacks of Sept. 11.” Even nonpolitical topics followed the pattern: “Videos about vegetarianism led to videos about veganism. Videos about jogging led to videos about running ultramarathons.”

Extremism is interesting. That’s part of the YouTube right’s programming strategy and it’s part of YouTube’s algorithmic strategy. But whether anyone intends it to or not, this mixture of social, political, and algorithmic preferences for extremism means that a 17-year-old kid who begins watching videos on the YouTube right can get drawn into very dark places very fast.

Ideological coalitions are strange things, and all the more so when they’re young and untested. They’re not really under anyone’s control. They often end up grouping together people who don’t much like each other. The boundaries of a movement aren’t just defined by who leads it, but who its followers believe belongs in it, and who they’re guided towards once they make contact with it. Making it yet more complex, this is arguably the first time we’ve seen a distinctive ideological coalition emerging atop social media platforms and under the influence of social media algorithms.

My guess is that there are dynamics on the reactionary right that will crack under different political structures. A normal Republican in the White House would likely split off some of the more mainstream conservatives from some of the more anti-establishment nodes, while a mainstream Democrat might strengthen these ties. But the new reactionary right is bigger than people realize and is only going to become more important in the future. Efforts to map it, and understand it — in terms of both how it understands itself and what it prefers not to understand about itself — are necessary, even if they’re imperfect.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 36788
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #151 on: March 16, 2019, 07:59:16 PM »
As Klein has it, "Many of these YouTubers are less defined by any single ideology than they are by a “reactionary” position: a general opposition to feminism, social justice, or left-wing politics." Even though they are hardly monolithic. On YouTube, tomorrow’s politics are emerging today.

Klein also seems to get Ashvin's intellectual lodestar, Jordan Peterson, correct, and identifies him as a classic reactionary.

Nice find.  :emthup:

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
The Intellectual Dark Web rides the Hershey Hiway
« Reply #152 on: March 17, 2019, 07:43:15 AM »
Algorithms, as if ze radical left were innocent.



The idea Feuilles and his fellow activists are pursuing is emerging in other locales as well, particularly as Drag Queen Storytime events, endorsed by the American Library Association, increase in popularity. A similar scene played out in a Detroit suburb in January, and in Anchorage, the Queen’s Guard plans on being at all future Drag Storytime events as well as other LGBT happenings around the state.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/02/26/anchorage-activists-form-queens-guard-protect-lgbt-events.

Tolerance morphed into intolerance a long ago now.  Now you are either an LGBT NAZI or a hater of them.  No other choice.

Somewhere in the not so far future.  I feel a dystopian novel coming on.  I can't help it.



Chapter One:

It had been a long day of traveling when the rollers finally reached the Neverlandia Border Crossing.  A guard dressed only in Village People police hat and black leather belt with one of those nutsackey leather pouchey thingies approached.  Attire far to scanty for the early March air. 

Bending over to be more at the eye level of our weary travelers so that he could more professionally asses their reactions, the guard moved his butt cheeks together in a quick shuffle as if a pet pony were right behind him ready to go.  With tippie-toes tingling in delight he said:

"Welcome to Neverlandia sweeties.  Do you all suck cock?  Only people who suck cock can come in here."

The guard stood back eyeing them closely knowing that stepping back would cause them all to posture revealing micro-reactions.

"Reaganville is just a few miles ahead if you're not family.

Noticing the quick involuntary tightening of postures he saw that these cracker asses had best keep rolling or they would be getting a load of butthurt from him before they would pass his gatepole.

Yabba Dabba Do Honey



« Last Edit: March 17, 2019, 07:50:40 AM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #153 on: March 17, 2019, 08:04:31 AM »


Look close, the 'sythe' our mystery man in Anchorage is holding is on an aluminum pole.  If you throw coins will he put his tongue on it?  Probably not.  It would take folding green for him to do that.  It is AK cold and it costs to live there.
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 36788
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #154 on: March 17, 2019, 08:25:28 AM »
It is AK cold and it costs to live there.

It's quite toasty here actually, 40F at the moment.  The real wicked cold days are pretty much over by now, and we didn't have too many this year.  I think only about a half dozen that went below 0F.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #155 on: March 17, 2019, 11:12:28 AM »
It is AK cold and it costs to live there.

It's quite toasty here actually, 40F at the moment.  The real wicked cold days are pretty much over by now, and we didn't have too many this year.  I think only about a half dozen that went below 0F.

RE

He still would not put his tongue on the pole for less than a buck.
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #156 on: March 17, 2019, 12:52:53 PM »
Many of these YouTubers are less defined by any single ideology than they are by a “reactionary” position: a general opposition to feminism, social justice, or left-wing politics.

I would call it reactionary, but not in exactly the way that author means....it is reactionary to certain memes that have been peddled in this country by a variety of sources. They include:

Diversity always makes our culture better.

People from groups that somehow might claim to have a history of having been persecuted are entitled to special consideration with regards to jobs, schools, and other opportunities that can be controlled by legislating special "rights" for those who fit into one of the defined groups.

White males are a group of oppressors who, through having seized control of the power structure somehow, manage to keep the special groups down by paying them less, taking the plum jobs and generally getting the best of everything, through some nebulous process known as "white privilege.

The reason the "reactionary you-tubers" (who aren't all that right-wing, btw) get an audience, is because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there's an agenda and a false narrative working in a legacy media that wants to paint itself as working for true social justice. Real social justice  and its pursuit has not been the direction we've been headed in for quite some time. The David Rubins of the utube world have a message that resonates with those who aren't beneficiaries of our brave new socially engineered mores and therefore see it as the bullshit much of it happens to be.

I love the way people instantly slap a label on those who say things they don't agree with. Reactionary right.....uh, not really. Not so much.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 36788
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #157 on: March 17, 2019, 02:27:14 PM »
I love the way people instantly slap a label on those who say things they don't agree with. Reactionary right.....uh, not really. Not so much.

It provides some balance to the endless Bogeyman pitch from Watson about the "Radical Left" taking over the FSoA.  It is beyond ridiculous.  Who has Da Goobermint in their pocket?  The Koch Brothers.  Are the Koch's closer to "Radical Left"or "Reactionary Right"?  I rest my case.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15303
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #158 on: March 18, 2019, 04:20:58 AM »
Many of these YouTubers are less defined by any single ideology than they are by a “reactionary” position: a general opposition to feminism, social justice, or left-wing politics.

I would call it reactionary, but not in exactly the way that author means....it is reactionary to certain memes that have been peddled in this country by a variety of sources. They include:

Diversity always makes our culture better.

People from groups that somehow might claim to have a history of having been persecuted are entitled to special consideration with regards to jobs, schools, and other opportunities that can be controlled by legislating special "rights" for those who fit into one of the defined groups.

White males are a group of oppressors who, through having seized control of the power structure somehow, manage to keep the special groups down by paying them less, taking the plum jobs and generally getting the best of everything, through some nebulous process known as "white privilege.

I love the way people instantly slap a label on those who say things they don't agree with. Reactionary right.....uh, not really. Not so much.

"Reactionary" means the same thing it meant when I learned it in sixth grade:

Quote
In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (economic prosperity, justice, individual ownership, discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.

QED.

The term comes out of the French revolution and means essentially, those who want to put things back the way they were before X fucked it up.
If the shoe fits...

"Reactionary right" is thus a redundancy.

Also from Wikipedia:

Quote

In the 19th century, reactionary denoted people who idealized feudalism and the pre-modern era—before the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution—when economies were mostly agrarian, a landed aristocracy dominated society, a hereditary king ruled and the Roman Catholic Church was society's moral centre. Those labelled as "reactionary" favoured the aristocracy instead of the middle class and the working class. Reactionaries opposed democracyand parliamentarism.


Then as now.

As for this trope:

Quote from: Eddie
...certain memes that have been peddled in this country by a variety of sources. They include: Diversity always makes our culture better.

Unfortunately for your argument, I am old enough to remember this:



Although as purposed it alludes to the union between the states and federal government, as a national motto it also reflect the "melting pot" concept taught to the children and grandchildren of immigrants own the public schools (back before we criminalized such ideas.)

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #159 on: March 18, 2019, 06:58:50 AM »
I just got back from NYC where billboards throughout the city proudly display the faces of women...the purpose?  To laud the accomplishments of "women of color" in the fields of science, technology, and medicine. A celebratory message to make non-white women proud of the fact that they can document actual cases of members of their group who achieved something worthwhile.

If I paid for a similar billboard lauding the accomplishments of some random Anglos or Asians or Jewish males  who made a contribution.... that sign would absolutely be defaced and destroyed in short order, never mind that most people would think it was dumb anyway. Everybody knows those groups crank out lots of scientists.

But we should laud brown-skinned female scientists, because....why? Maybe because they're as rare as unicorns? No...the meme is aimed at young black women, telling them "you can do anything a white man can do"...

In the subway I saw a poster ad by some university showing a well-dressed young black man standing at a blackboard writing equations like the kid in Good Will Hunting......(except that kid was white)..... the obvious message being that they couldn't wait to enroll black students and turn them into rocket scientists.

I visited the Tenement Museum on the lower east side. While I waited for my tour to begin, I got to sit in their projection room and watch a movie that consisted completely of fresh, young persons of color, Asian Americans, Indian Americans....every color of the rainbow (except white) speaking English with perfect diction, telling about sharing their stories about their immigrant parents and grandparents....the overriding message being that people are more alike than different, that immigration is great, and that we should all just learn to get along.

Meanwhile, out on the street, the real evidence was totally the opposite. Jews who live down near Times Square very obviously pissed off at real and faux Irish stumbling around drunk after the St. Patrick's day parade.  Groups of well dressed ethnic Chinese girls of school age on the streets in Queens traveling in packs and conversing in rapid-fire Mandarin. Muslim Uber drivers with their ear buds in, trying to ignore even a thank you from an old white guy like me. Filipinos and Tibetans jammed into their own little enclaves in Woodside where my kids live.

In a tony French restaurant I asked if NYC had medical MJ yet,  and my waiter explained that it had been delayed because NY's powers-that-be realized there was discrimination in the way the dispensary licences were being handed out. Not enough "persons of color" (her term, not mine) had managed to meet the requirements,,,because too many of them had a criminal record...so the program was being revamped to correct that injustice. I didn't solicit that story at all.

It's just everywhere, staring you in the face.

Explain to me me one more time WTF any of that silliness makes the least bit of CFS? And why young people of Anglo-European ancestry should open their arms to other races who happen to be themselves extremely racist and insular? And who demand special treatment because they're a minority group?

Tell me that these memes of social justice and political correctness aren't part of the program of the elites, carefully being pushed in schools and on television and in print media.

No wonder utube content providers who are calling bullshit have a lot of subscibers,

If you don't see this going on, you're being willfully ignorant. Go stick your head back in the sand. Your a fucking ostrich.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 36788
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #160 on: March 18, 2019, 07:06:22 AM »

If I paid for a similar billboard lauding the accomplishments of some random Anglos or Asians or Jewish males  who made a contribution.... that sign would absolutely be defaced and destroyed in short order, never mind that most people would think it was dumb anyway.

I've never seen a bllboard of Einstein defaced, and he was both White & Jewish.


RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #161 on: March 18, 2019, 07:27:42 AM »
Well, then QED. I must be making it all up.

It's all in my reactionary right wing mind.....except I'm not making it up, I have a perfectly valid point, and Einstein is a very special case, which you do understand. Good try at muddying the waters, but no cigar.

They wouldn't deface a billboard of JFK either. Even old Jews like JFK, even though he was as Irish as it gets...but he's not the Irish guy in Woodside watching rugby on TV being broadcast in Gaelic...and there are Irish people in NYC in Irish pubs (lots of them) doing just that.

You know I'm right, and so does Surly. But go on lying to yourself and others. This isn't Pinnochio, and your nose won't grow. You'll just be perpetuating a false narrative like a lot of other liars with an agenda.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 36788
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #162 on: March 18, 2019, 07:39:45 AM »
You know I'm right, and so does Surly

No, I don't know you're right correct.  ;D

It really seems to bug you that brown people want some recognition for their accomplishments.  This follows along from your hatred of the "special treatment" you feel they get from programs like Affirmative Action and bullshit jobs doing political nonsense for various Universities.

To me, this is a fucking non-issue and I can't fathom why you get so bent out of shape over it?   :icon_scratch:  However, any time anything comes up about the SJWs, you just gotta drop in and put up yet another video from Jordan Peterson.  It's just irrelevant nonsense.

Now, the article I put up early this morning on the move to a Cashless Society, THAT is significant and worth talking about, but nothing from you on that one.  No commentary on my Collapse Wake-Up Call Aviation Special either.  Your eye is not on the ball, it's on all the distractions.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #163 on: March 18, 2019, 08:08:16 AM »
You know I'm right, and so does Surly

No, I don't know you're right correct.  ;D

It really seems to bug you that brown people want some recognition for their accomplishments.  This follows along from your hatred of the "special treatment" you feel they get from programs like Affirmative Action and bullshit jobs doing political nonsense for various Universities.

To me, this is a fucking non-issue and I can't fathom why you get so bent out of shape over it?   :icon_scratch:  However, any time anything comes up about the SJWs, you just gotta drop in and put up yet another video from Jordan Peterson.  It's just irrelevant nonsense.

Now, the article I put up early this morning on the move to a Cashless Society, THAT is significant and worth talking about, but nothing from you on that one.  No commentary on my Collapse Wake-Up Call Aviation Special either.  Your eye is not on the ball, it's on all the distractions.

RE

Your eye is not on the  ball. What I'm talking about is pure Bernays, and obvious to even the casual observer of the way our American mores are being shaped by deliberate programming. It matters because programming works, and most people are doing one of two things.....buying into the false narrative, or rebelling against it.

Surly's campaign to discredit Ashvin, and your participation, puts you on the side of the programmers, which is definitely NOT my side. Merely by pointing this out, both Ashvin and and myself are getting smeared...but more importantly, you are lending your support to some ideas that need to be questioned and called out for what they are.

Our political system has broken down. Your side, the liberal side, has splintered and left a dangerous power vacuum that has been filled by our own little Mussolini, Mr. Trump. The things I'm discussing are what have led to the splintering. By veering either further from reality, the so-called progressives have opened the door to real dictatorial totalitarianism, which (in spite of those who say otherwise) we have not quite succumbed to yet.

Me saying that doesn't make me a right wing reactionary. It makes me a realist. But I get called a racist....just like you call Kunstler a racist when he says the exact same things I do.

By studying cryptos, I've left you far behind in terms of understanding the future of money. I'm consumed by the topic and I have a lot of questions that I am trying to answer for myself. I checked in to the Diner a number of times while I was out of town, and I didn't see your new stuff. I mostly saw the usual AG and Knarf  "how to save the world" cut and paste, which doesn't interest me much anymore, as it never changes, and almost always misses the bigger picture.

I'll read your take on the coming cashless society, and try to make a cogent comment. How about that? I have my own take on aviation, having just experienced one of the worst travels days of my life last Wednesday, on which I lost it and got into a screaming match with two completely incompetent affirmative-action hires who work for United....in Houston, which is a model of our new diverse racial melting pot society that ignores merit and worships entitlement.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 36788
    • View Profile
Re: The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)
« Reply #164 on: March 18, 2019, 08:17:33 AM »
I'll read your take on the coming cashless society, and try to make a cogent comment. How about that? I have my own take on aviation, having just experienced one of the worst travels days of my life last Wednesday, on which I lost it and got into a screaming match with two completely incompetent affirmative-action hires who work for United....in Houston, which is a model of our new diverse racial melting pot society that ignores merit and worships entitlement.

Not my article.  A copy/paste from Don Quijones.

We all have our own takes on everything.  That doesn't mean you don't listen to somebody else's take.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
379 Views
Last post August 02, 2016, 03:36:03 PM
by Palloy
0 Replies
331 Views
Last post July 06, 2017, 07:22:42 PM
by Palloy2
42 Replies
1961 Views
Last post January 02, 2019, 08:36:32 PM
by K-Dog