Tesseraction posted:

It's a mixture. I wasn't talking about wanking though.

Back to the topic. I agree that people can be defensive when you suggest they aren't free of Xism. But the thing is that a lot of the argument you've been involved in is people saying "I'm trying to fight against Xism" and you saying "but you can never truly be free of Xism" but in a way that comes across as "but you're still an Xist"

I mean you're not wrong, but because of the way you're arguing it, you're talking across people who are talking across you.

Cingulate posted:

And one should not have delusions.

Guavanaut posted:

Can anyone be fully free of sexism, internalized or otherwise, in a patriarchal society?

I thought it was similar to Marx and class consciousness under capitalism, you can be aware of class but not free of it without changing the underlying structure.

OwlFancier posted:

Yes you should.

Cingulate posted:

Well do you?

Once we're in a discourse where we assume what we do is determined by external conditions, I'm spent anyways. I have nothing interesting to say beyond that.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

well, that shirt isnt wrong. lol

Cingulate posted:

Open question: once at a very low level of sexism, is it more helpful to examine ones remaining sexism, or to trying to mostly ignore it? This is somewhat analogous to Bill O'Reilly claiming to be color blind.

Tesseraction posted:

Well this is partially what the point of the argument comes to. Dialectical re-evaluation of your viewpoint is part of what makes someone 'non-sexist' even while potentially holding sexist biases.

Also Billo isn't race blind at all and shame on you for suggesting so. :P

Cardboard Box A posted:

Childless single man wears shirt saying "THIS IS WHAT A PATRIARCH LOOKS LIKE" ?

Yeah, it's wrong.

Cingulate posted:

Open question: once at a very low level of sexism, is it more helpful to examine ones remaining sexism, or to trying to mostly ignore it? This is somewhat analogous to Bill O'Reilly claiming to be color blind.

Cingulate posted:

In the sense of typically not engaging in either conscious or subconscious sexist behavior, a lot of people, even a lot of guys, are not sexist - but even here, I'd say, one should probably be very careful before assigning oneself that label.

Also, you may think Bill sees color - e.g., here he makes clear he knows Santa Claus was white, showing that he clearly is able to perceive the skin tone of Santa Claus - but he also says it doesn't matter. QED

Cardboard Box A posted:

Childless single man wears shirt saying "THIS IS WHAT A PATRIARCH LOOKS LIKE" ?

Yeah, it's wrong.

Hbomberguy posted:

Speaking of Hitler, Not enough people on any side of any political debate have actually read Mein Kampf and that's a crying shame. I'm really interested in the annotated version coming out in Germany, though I'll probably have to wait for it to be translated.

It's a lot of really boring, poorly-written anecdotes (and I know from a native reader that the poorly-written-ness of the translation is accurate), punctuated with chillingly relevant advice for how to get ahead in politics, and the fact it's still good advice says more about how modern politics continues to function than it does about Hitler.

divabot posted:

oh god, that thing was in my school library.

(I was po' but went to a school for rich kids. apparently this is suitable reading for rich kids.)

it was THE. WORST. I think I made it twenty pages in. The intro says something about "those expecting an incendiary work of political pornography will be disappointed".

I did like the frequent footnotes, for every time he talked complete bollocks. "This is false."

Tesseraction posted:

Wait, a version with footnotes? What country were you in?

Professor D. C. Watt posted:

Those who pick it up and thumb it through expecting a work of political pornography are going to be disappointed. It is lengthy, dull, bombastic, repetitious and extremely badly written. As a historical picture of Hitler’s life up to the time he wrote it, it is also quite unreliable. Most of its statements of fact and the entire tenor of the argument in the autobiographical passages are demonstrably untrue.

OwlFancier posted:

Yes you should.

divabot posted:

Australia, around 1983-84ish. This was a UK translation, from after World War II. It tried to be an accurate translation, but was fully footnoted for people who seriously wanted to know what Hitler had actually said. I don't recall anything about it except I found it in the school library and went "WOW" and saw the quote, which was along the lines of:


(and I also recall I lasted about 20 pages 'cos it really is just a pile of poo poo)

So having it start like that and follow through with footnotes noting Hitler bullshitting made me respect it a bit.

Not sure which translation it was, possibly the Manheim, I'm not sure.

Twerkteam Pizza posted:

I dunno I kind of agree that at some point you can't just keep trying to fix your exceptionally small remnants of sexist/racist/classist/homophobic thought, because external issues are more important. Still, I dunno if this is right

Who What Now posted:

And as we all know Bill O'Reilly cannot tell a lie. Who ever heard of a bigot hiding their bigotry?!

divabot posted:

oh god, that thing was in my school library.

(I was po' but went to a school for rich kids. apparently this is suitable reading for rich kids.)

it was THE. WORST. I think I made it twenty pages in. The intro says something about "those expecting an incendiary work of political pornography will be disappointed".

I did like the frequent footnotes, for every time he talked complete bollocks. "This is false."

Guavanaut posted:

From a philosophical perspective, all aspects of oneself should be examined, these letters between Nadezhda Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot (while in prison) to Slavoj Žižek provide an interesting case, in the April/June letters where instead of doubling down or offering some feminist platitudes, Žižek examines his own sexism.

From a pragmatic point of view, you could argue that there comes a point where your efforts are better spent on preventing sexism elsewhere, or doing other things.

OwlFancier posted:

I... kind of want to read that. Like if terry pratchett wrote the book.


I mean generally, delusions are sort of integral to the human experience, you can't really be free of delusion and still function.

Munin posted:

[edit] I think that many nerds might be uncomfortable with the fact that much of the best classic hard sci-fi could be argued to be works of speculative sociology.

OwlFancier posted:

Really? Because arguably that's what defines scifi, as opposed to fantasy. Scifi is supposed to have a strong element of exploring the effects of an idea, usually sociologically.

Cingulate posted:

I know you will not understand this either, but I take a certain demented pleasure in presenting it still: you're right now showing why this thread is particularly ill suited to understanding the psychology of the Dark Enlightenment.
Hatred makes for a poor guide.

Munin posted:

From what I've seen many nerds of a STEM persuasion have a rather dim view of sociology as a discipline. Also, sociology is a subject very much concerned with society and societies (obv), and politics which many nerds (especially of the libertarian sort) want to disassociate themselves from. Their beloved fetish object was tainted from the start.

And yeah, I agree with your statement in case that was not obvious.

Who What Now posted:

Oh no, Cingulate doesn't think I understand the Dork Enlightnement as good as he. Truly my self-esteem has been crushed by this.

Cingulate posted:

If I'm being allowed to do a bit of armchair sociology here.

OwlFancier posted:

Really? Because arguably that's what defines scifi, as opposed to fantasy. Scifi is supposed to have a strong element of exploring the effects of an idea, usually sociologically.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

i mean if i were going to paint a picture of a person representing the stereotypical assholish patriarchy. it would be him. i didnt say the shirt or he was right.

Tesseraction posted:

Wait, a version with footnotes? What country were you in?

Cardboard Box A posted:

Well he's certainly the very model of a modern major MRA rear end in a top hat who THINKS he's the perfect patriarch, but if we are to be accurate, he's not a father, either biologically, adoptively, or even figuratively. Patriarchy is not "rule by childless single men."

This is an important distinction because like many MRA manospherians he has constructed a fantasy that it would be great if MEN RULED THE WORLD FOR REAL and the reason he is not in the position of power or influence that he truly deserves is because he is LAID LOW BY THE MATRIARCHY, without realizing that in the most extreme patriarchy imaginable, he would be just as disenfranchised, if not more so, because he hasn't even put in the effort required to be admitted into the franchise, and he hasn't the fainted respect or even apprehension of what patriarchies require in order to build an maintain functional societies.

He's not Immortan Joe. He's a warboy.

Guavanaut posted:

Anarchists who think that they would be on top of their end goal of no hierarchy are probably doing it wrong, yes.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

I mean those edgy kids/teens/dudes/some girls who think if the world went to poo poo they would be able carve out and rule a fiefdom or someshit.

Guavanaut posted:

Actually, I think you'll find they call themselves autarchists now.

Guavanaut posted:

I think Onanist would more accurately describe a lot of philosophy.

Pope Guilty posted:

Onan pulled out during sex and that's a lot close to a woman than any of these winners are going to come.

Dex posted:

roses are red,
statists are fools,
it's such loving bullshit
that i can't live near schools

divabot posted: