Friday, December 21, 2018

Review of "controversial" patronized accounts show anti-tribal or anti-intersectional material, but little or no hate speech as commonly understood in the past


Just a note tonight about what creates the impression that someone is associated with extremism, especially right wing or white supremacy.
  
I’ve watched a few more videos of people who seem controversial to the extreme Left.
  
Generally, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) and Jordan Peterson, and similar people, argue against intersectionality and making policy on the basis of individualized equality of opportunity, but not equity in outcomes.  They generally dismiss the notion of group marginalization and tend to believe individuals should overcome their issues on the way.  Their views might be seen as part of objectivism, maybe along the lines of Ayn Rand sometimes.  
  
Milo Yiannopoulos is a little testier.  His book is reasonable (although I wouldn’t organize a book on why one group after another hates me) but sometimes in other public utterances he will denigrate persons for their appearance as not conforming to society’s notions of what used to be “desirable” with respect to gender.  I know what Milo is getting at, but I can see that sometimes he is over the line.
  
  
Note Tim Pool’s comments about how Nate Silver was treated, and Twitter argument he presents with renowned gay journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped Laura Poitras make a film about Edward Snowden.
  
This does seem to be deteriorating into pure tribalism, as to who is the “enemy” when they are becoming enemies of one another.  Sorry, I just don’t perceive Milo and James Damore as “enemies”.  But I am an elderly gay white male myself – but I did deal with McCarthyism early in my adulthood.  OK, maybe I don’t respect “fluidity” enough, or maybe I do admit to  seeing it as a threat to my own deepest personal intimate values, about what would matter to me personally in another person in a private relationship – except that social media would never allow it to be private.  (I could get into the idea of how physical shame used to be part of gay erotica, but that’s a whole different discussion.)
  
There was also a bizarre twist on “Economic Invincibility” and his YouTube account.  On Dec 19, I believe, he made a Jonathan Swift-like post on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment (the right of women to vote).  The comments were awful (extremely “right wing”).  He deleted it, and added nothing more for a day or so.  Tonight, be put it up again, without the original comments.  OK, I get the idea that some people want only those who “produce” (work for a living) to vote, and don’t want those on welfare to.  It isn’t going to happen (although merely mentioning the idea seems like an existential threat to “oppressed peoples” as viewed by the Left).  I whimsically commented on Dec 19 that you could base the number of votes on the number of legitimate financial dependents, giving larger families more votes.  I meant that as a “Jonathan Swift” comment, and added “be careful what you wish for.”  But the old comments are gone.
  
As Milo says, some ideas are “dangerous” if they get talked about long enough.

Here is Sargon’s own account of the Vid incident in 2017 in Los Angeles. 

Update: Dec. 12

Here is a piece by John Timmer on Ars Technica on why political radicals are so vulnerable to propaganda and less capable of critical thinking.  It may actually be partly genetic or biological. Humans vary individually on their needs for tribal validation. So do many animals (like cats). 

No comments: