If Mort Divine ruled the world

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Mort, serious question, are you racist?

 

[Mort Divine]

I think it would be fair to say that I am to some degree. Not openly hatefully so, but contributing to attitudes and behaviors at times. I try my best to not be and I am obviously against it, but that doesn't absolve me of anything just need to recognize when I do something problematic and adjust accordingly.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Hm yea I kinda get that. Although it screams white guilt to me but maybe I'm buying into that too

See I know we're just playing with words here and I'll continue to do so by saying I do not consider myself to be racist but I am racial. Meaning I don't hate anyone because of their skin color and gorilla features or flat faces or big jew noses but I am racial enough to joke about it. I truly do not want to contribute to a system that holds anyone down but does that mean I should stop telling jokes? am I really perpetuating it on that level? I can really say I dont know, but in my heart im not even close to a racist I'm just a fan of absurdity, exaggeration and free speech. And I believe this helps alleviate racial tensions. And I know plenty of black people who believe this and do the same thing (mostly comics)
Now on a physical level, if I'm walking down my block in Newark and I see a group of young black men on the corner across from my building and I cross the street does that make me racist? no, but it sure is racial, because if they were jews or italians I wouldnt even think about it. When I have a conversation with a urban black man or puerto rican on the train am I aware of the possible threat to my life? yup, that's because I'm consciously racial. It's the same reason I avoid asian people on the train because eventually they will pull out a bootleg dvd and try to sell it to me

 

[rms]

I think it would be fair to say that I am to some degree. Not openly hatefully so, but contributing to attitudes and behaviors at times. I try my best to not be and I am obviously against it, but that doesn't absolve me of anything just need to recognize when I do something problematic and adjust accordingly.

What attributes and behaviors are you referring to?

I think this monologue serves as what everyone has as stereotypes and prejudices, but it's not in the same category as systemic racism, which is what I disagree with in the video.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Not just stereotypes and prejudices but exaggerated stereotypes and prejudices, mocking and devaluing it


oh boy, this should be good

 

[Dak]

He may not be entirely willing to listen to potentially ugly opinions draped in the regalia of rationale

"Potentially 'ugly' opinions." No, it's been pretty much any assertion that his belief system could possibly have issues. I guess that might qualify to a believer as "ugly". But then how isn't that ignorant behavior? It's like the truckers on Religulous: Sure Maher was being a jerk, picking on the poor guys, but a "I'm not sure what you're saying, but I don't think I like the sound of it, so you can git out" is ignorant.

We all eventually choose our sides, and at some point it becomes fruitless to chase the rabbit all the way down the hole because any and every position runs aground at its ideological origin. I think Mort knows this and sees a certain ethical value in maintaining his stance.

You can't accuse him of being ignorant, since it's clear he's educated himself. He might be myopic... but then aren't we all?

Everyone who bothered to respond was all "lolwut" to a recent post by SS about how everything boils down to values, but this pretty much backs that up. "Ideological origins" is just a synonym for values. But values aren't chosen or backed incidentally, even for people who "got it from their parents". There are reasons, even if those reasons don't come from a lot of personal reflection. Mort will not only not acknowledge under-girding values systems, he can't understand there are compelling reasons for competing values systems.

I don't know what Mort's "official" education level is, but he's demonstrating no education on these issues that you can't get from the hivemind of tumblr/twitter. I don't refer to that as educated.

Identity is fluid - I mean, it's a fiction for fuck's sake. The mistake the Left makes is in posing a plurality of identities whilst simultaneously participating in the conservative (in a vague sense) practice of solidifying those identities. The embarrassment of Rachel Dolezal isn't in the Left's critical response to her black act; it's in the Left's continued commitment to the cult of authenticity.

Those of previously marginalized status feel a compulsion toward definitive and concrete identity because they were denied it for a long time. Now the paradoxes and inconsistencies of identity are spewing forth because the Left wants to admit plurality but resist the fictive quality of identity. The truly radical answer isn't to admit that black, gay, queer, transgender, etc. are stable identities on par with "white heterosexual male." The radical answer is to admit that "white heterosexual male" is as fictional as any other identity.

I did specify "from use to use and feels to feels". I was mainly attacking the "motte and bailey" tactics. Obviously over long periods of time, various consistent identity forms change modes of expression (even some average of straight white male expression now doesn't look like 50 years ago, like 200 years ago, etc). But these things don't change in the course of 2 pages of forum argument.

The embarrassment for the Left on Dolezal is it highlights the dissonance on authenticity (ie the commitment). They can kick and scream about "well that's different" but I don't think even they buy it.

That said, history is a powerful narrative, and it bestows credit upon an accidentally happy few. If the decision is to persist in our dream of identity so that historically marginal subjects get a shot at some kind imaginary authenticity, then so be it. It won't last; but the recoil will either be some kind of rejection of "abnormal" identities, resulting in an identitarian totalitarianism, or it will be the devaluation of identity across the board.

I'm for the latter. Most identities suck anyway.

Looking at the world population, and general human tendencies, I wouldn't bet on the latter regardless of whether identities are a fiction or not. Identities serve a useful function and so will probably stick around.

See I know we're just playing with words here and I'll continue to do so by saying I do not consider myself to be racist but I am racial. Meaning I don't hate anyone because of their skin color and gorilla features or flat faces or big jew noses but I am racial enough to joke about it. I truly do not want to contribute to a system that holds anyone down but does that mean I should stop telling jokes? am I really perpetuating it on that level? I can really say I dont know, but in my heart im not even close to a racist I'm just a fan of absurdity, exaggeration and free speech. And I believe this helps alleviate racial tensions. And I know plenty of black people who believe this and do the same thing (mostly comics)
Now on a physical level, if I'm walking down my block in Newark and I see a group of young black men on the corner across from my building and I cross the street does that make me racist? no, but it sure is racial, because if they were jews or italians I wouldnt even think about it. When I have a conversation with a urban black man or puerto rican on the train am I aware of the possible threat to my life? yup, that's because I'm consciously racial. It's the same reason I avoid asian people on the train because eventually they will pull out a bootleg dvd and try to sell it to me

Pretending blindness to obvious phenotypical differences screams issues. To acknowledge them in a non-hateful manner is actual acceptance. Jokes on these differences must tread a faultline in the social terra, but it is possible to be acceptable.

As far as "purse clutching" behavior goes, statistically speaking it's the wise move. SJW's don't want to hear it, but it simply doesn't matter in the moment if the reason I'm getting murdered or mugged for going down that dark alley is because of "systemic racism in the banking industry". The smart move is to walk on the other side of the dark alley. Or the 3 young black men. They probably weren't going to attack you. But then you might be some metalheads coming back from MDF one night and they might want your stuff.


The constant elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned is the constantly decreasing health of both the nuclear family and broader voluntary social units/educational performance/etc in the face of the expanding welfare state. It hit blacks first and hardest but it isn't stopping there, and they aren't done being ground under by it.

The absolute biggest issue for SJWs is not so much that they want to see things better for certain people - it's that they are completely ignorant of how to go about achieving those things. Even if we could completely agree on ends, their means are worse than a fantasy - they are concretely destructive to those very demographics they want to help.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what Mort's "official" education level is, but he's demonstrating no education on these issues that you can't get from the hivemind of tumblr/twitter. I don't refer to that as educated.

Well, if that's the standard we're using and we're addressing these specific issues (as you say), then you're not demonstrating any kind of significantly advanced education either.

It isn't exactly Chomsky/Foucault happening up in here.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

^

 

[Dak]

Well, if that's the standard we're using and we're addressing these specific issues (as you say), then you're not demonstrating any kind of significantly advanced education either.

It isn't exactly Chomsky/Foucault happening up in here.

I'd like to think Foucault would have had quite a bit of fun trolling Chomsky on Twitter

 

[CiG]

I hate the word problematic.

 

[Dak]

I hate the word problematic.

That frames you as a conservative!

I dislike its overuse, but I think that goes for anything that gets completed used to death.

Edit: Interesting piece on problematic.

http://www.theawl.com/2014/09/the-problem-with-problems

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd like to think Foucault would have had quite a bit of fun trolling Chomsky on Twitter

Hate to break it to you, but if anyone's Chomsky in this debate, it's you.

 

[CiG]

That frames you as a conservative!

I dislike its overuse, but I think that goes for anything that gets completed used to death.

Ha, I can see why you'd say that, but I assure you I'm not a conservative, I describe myself as politically apathetic but if I had to fall anywhere I'd fall on the Left, though unlike most I'm not politically tribal nor am I an ideologue so I'm open to interpretations of any variety, hence why I follow individuals I'm not necessarily in agreement with (ie Peter Hitchens, Milo Yiannopoulos, Karen Straughan etc) simply because I fucking despise echo-chambers.

My main issue with the word problematic in it's current usage is that it gives off a faint air of thought control, it's a word usually used by people that don't have the guts to admit that they're slightly authoritarian.
Things that are considered problematic by today's standards are things that aren't heinous enough to be dealt with via the law but rub you the wrong way just enough that you'd like to suggest it should be forcibly stopped.

I'm similar to Jimmy in that, I value free expression and unfortunately racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic (etc) jokes are exactly the kinds of things that fall under problematic.

 

[Dak]

Hate to break it to you, but if anyone's Chomsky in this debate, it's you.

I must assume you claim the mantle of Foucault then, because no one else is attacking the subject, but I can't think of too many (particularly practical) positions of Chomsky which I align with. On the other hand, Foucault acknowledges the Cathedral in less meme-ified and pointed terms . Regardless, my comment about philosophers and trolling was meant in a completely different and almost immediately terminating direction.

 

[Einherjar86]

I must assume you claim the mantle of Foucault then, because no one else is attacking the subject, but I can't think of too many (particularly practical) positions of Chomsky which I align with. On the other hand, Foucault acknowledges the Cathedral in less meme-ified and pointed terms . Regardless, my comment about philosophers and trolling was meant in a completely different and almost immediately terminating direction.

Your really brief, reductive description of Foucault doesn't do him (or Mort) justice.

First of all, you need to specify what you mean by "attack." Foucault doesn't attack the subject in the sense of dismantling and deconstructing the subject. Foucault is interested in how the subject is constructed. For Foucault, the subject is very real; and I think Mort would agree with this.

Foucault actually ruthlessly avoids commenting on whether sexual identity is innate or constructed. His interests lie in the historical importance of sexuality as a central component of identity.

But we can terminate this discussion of your completely different comment.

 

[Dak]

Sexual identity has been a central component of identity because we are a sexually reproductive organism. It is also completely stable outside of intentional surgery or catastrophic injury/defect. In terms of fitness (as in, that which survives), selection automatically moves to exclude the non-optimizing reproducers - and obviously the non-reproducers. The fittest organisms focus on reproduction, quite tautological. It's much more simple at its root than Foucault would probably want to address. Where he might have found plenty to work with had he lived on would be to look at how we have this sort of divergence where we can make humans without sex but at the same time, sexual identity has fallen even more under the spotlight. Is it because sex isn't *necessary* that now we are facing an identity crisis, like the retiree whose identity was in their jobs?

I believe identities serve a very useful and necessary function, but establishing them within mere happenstance (race, age, sex, etc) or organization (job, nationality, etc) rather than action is a recipe for disappointment and crises. Not that those other things aren't means for or modes of expression via action, but action and history travels and ages well where age or jobs don't.

Most people don't function well in a world in total flux, which is why they do prefer identities which offer the appearance of stability to operate out of as a base. Up until the last few decades, jobs offered a stable modifier on identities. At the same time as that was ripped away from most people, so was sex, religion, nationality, etc.

What have people been left with? Sports teams and x-kins? This is even worse. Teams might last longer than your job, but identities rooted in momentary feels and subject to the fickle tides of social mediaites crash people on mental rocks much more often than they bear them in a short lived but ecstatic high (and identities rooted in sports teams have the same net effect, depending on winning and losing). This is a significant reason (but not the only or even only significant reason) mental wellness surveys on young Americans have been charting declines for some time now.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sexual identity has been a central component of identity because we are a sexually reproductive organism. It is also completely stable outside of intentional surgery or catastrophic injury/defect.

This is why you're nothing like Foucault - instead, you choose to pursue a kind of Chomsky-an "deep grammar" version of sexuality: a "deep sexuality" (i.e. that the structures of sexual identity derive from innate propensities toward certain sexual behaviors).

Foucault says that sexuality was not always a primary motivating factor of identity, but that it became a primary motivating factor sometime in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries. It wasn't until this time that Western culture placed a kind of evaluative importance on sexuality, believing that it reflected an essential core, or secret, of human identity. He associates this shift largely with the transfer of authoritarian power from the priest to the psychiatrist. This isn't to say that same-sex relationships/desires didn't exist prior to the nineteenth century (they most certainly did); but that they did not partake of modern identity in the way that sexual orientation does today.

Identities are useful; anything can be useful given the right context. According to you, cisgender sexual identity is more useful because you attribute a positive value to sexual production (survival = good). But sexual reproduction isn't necessary for a single human individual to survive, nor should the perpetuation of the human race be a matter of concern for someone who doesn't care about sexual reproduction in the first place. Of course, much of this is beside the point since same-sex couples adopt children all the time, or have children by other means.

As far as exactly what you're trying to argue regarding traditional gender roles and/or sexual behavior, I have no idea. Your privileging of cisgender identity and traditional sexual relationships has absolutely no logical ground. If you, for some insane reason, think that the survival of the human race should be of utmost concern for every human individual, then you enter into an apologetics for sexual hegemony and political control of a subject's sexual behavior.

It isn't true at all that a cisgender identity or traditional sexual behavior, or even a stable sexual identity, yields an improved experience of life. This is only true given the already situated sexual expectations of our culture.

 

[Dak]

This is why you're nothing like Foucault - instead, you choose to pursue a kind of Chomsky-an "deep grammar" version of sexuality: a "deep sexuality" (i.e. that the structures of sexual identity derive from innate propensities toward certain sexual behaviors).

To suggest that there is no innate propensity is to embrace some sort of hyperdualism that even Descartes wouldn't go along with. There's a reason that transsexuals go through hormone therapy. If that's Chomskyan then so be it.

Foucault says that sexuality was not always a primary motivating factor of identity, but that it became a primary motivating factor sometime in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries. It wasn't until this time that Western culture placed a kind of evaluative importance on sexuality, believing that it reflected an essential core, or secret, of human identity. He associates this shift largely with the transfer of authoritarian power from the priest to the psychiatrist. This isn't to say that same-sex relationships/desires didn't exist prior to the nineteenth century (they most certainly did); but that they did not partake of modern identity in the way that sexual orientation does today.

It was certainly in his personal interest to make this assertion, but it's pretty amusing, since he has to pretty much ignore all of history and blow 19th century victorianism/psychiatry way out of proportion compared to everything which proceeded and informed it (which is actually in contradiction to his common angle of analysis). On the other hand, it's very easy to claim nothing in history "partakes of x in the way of modernity", although it's a relatively empty analysis. Inanna and friends are all giggling at Foucault on this.

Identities are useful; anything can be useful given the right context. According to you, cisgender sexual identity is more useful because you attribute a positive value to sexual production (survival = good). But sexual reproduction isn't necessary for a single human individual to survive, nor should the perpetuation of the human race be a matter of concern for someone who doesn't care about sexual reproduction in the first place. Of course, much of this is beside the point since same-sex couples adopt children all the time, or have children by other means.

Sure, sex isn't necessary for the subject to live. But the subject is a fiction. What is it that does continue? As far as non-cis reproduction goes, I already pointed out that the current crises if you will, is occurring somewhat simultaneously with the ability for human reproduction to happen outside of/without "organic" ("PIV") bounds/means.

As far as exactly what you're trying to argue regarding traditional gender roles and/or sexual behavior, I have no idea. Your privileging of cisgender identity and traditional sexual relationships has absolutely no logical ground. If you, for some insane reason, think that the survival of the human race should be of utmost concern for every human individual, then you enter into an apologetics for sexual hegemony and political control of a subject's sexual behavior.

It isn't true at all that a cisgender identity or traditional sexual behavior, or even a stable sexual identity, yields an improved experience of life. This is only true given the already situated sexual expectations of our culture.

Every statement taken alone is logically grounded, if you will, outside of statements of logical impossibility (This is a four sided triangle). I don't think that it *should* be in the interest of *every* subject to reproduce. I find it merely tautological that what lies below the subject is "interested" in this to some degree, and if not then it removes itself. The subject may do what it pleases, but there will be consequences which are beyond even things like "social acceptance", which is the only framework or "grid" (to borrow from Foucault) that seems to get any attention from SJWs. A pundit like Milo can recognize this, and is willing to take an unpopular position relative to his fellow sexual identifiers because he sees the current gains in social acceptance as Pyrrhic in nature.

 

[Einherjar86]

To suggest that there is no innate propensity is to embrace some sort of hyperdualism that even Descartes wouldn't go along with. There's a reason that transsexuals go through hormone therapy. If that's Chomskyan then so be it.

Of course there are innate propensities. The point is that they are not automatically associated with the values of survival or reproduction; nor are they absolutely stable. Propensities can change, and there are no original propensities.

Furthermore, transsexuals going through hormone therapy has nothing to do with changing their sexual preferences; those are already in play prior to the therapy. You seem to be suggesting that transsexuals (before "becoming" transsexuals) are attracted to people of the opposite sex, but would rather be attracted to members of the same sex. This isn't the case, of course, because it is the sexual attraction that inspires the therapy in the first place.

It was certainly in his personal interest to make this assertion, but it's pretty amusing, since he has to pretty much ignore all of history and blow 19th century victorianism/psychiatry way out of proportion compared to everything which proceeded and informed it (which is actually in contradiction to his common angle of analysis). On the other hand, it's very easy to claim nothing in history "partakes of x in the way of modernity", although it's a relatively empty analysis. Inanna and friends are all giggling at Foucault on this.

I don't know who Inanna is, unless you mean the mythological figure. That still clarifies nothing for me.

Foucault doesn't ignore the rest of history. The only reason he can make the claim he does is by taking the rest of history into account. That seems like a pretty easy point to understand...

Sure, sex isn't necessary for the subject to live. But the subject is a fiction. What is it that does continue? As far as non-cis reproduction goes, I already pointed out that the current crises if you will, is occurring somewhat simultaneously with the ability for human reproduction to happen outside of/without "organic" ("PIV") bounds/means.

What crisis? What problem? I don't see a problem except for you making one. This entire passage is almost incomprehensible to me, and this portion - "Sure, sex isn't necessary for the subject to live. But the subject is a fiction. What is it that does continue?" - makes no sense at all.

Set the subject aside; sexual reproduction isn't necessary for a single human body to survive. All I was trying to say was that certain subjects may not consider reproduction to be important to their sexual identities. If this is the case, then why insist that it should be important?

Perhaps you'll have to clarify, as succinctly as possible, what crisis you're talking about...?

Every statement taken alone is logically grounded, if you will, outside of statements of logical impossibility (This is a four sided triangle). I don't think that it *should* be in the interest of *every* subject to reproduce. I find it merely tautological that what lies below the subject is "interested" in this to some degree, and if not then it removes itself. The subject may do what it pleases, but there will be consequences which are beyond even things like "social acceptance", which is the only framework or "grid" (to borrow from Foucault) that seems to get any attention from SJWs. A pundit like Milo can recognize this, and is willing to take an unpopular position relative to his fellow sexual identifiers because he sees the current gains in social acceptance as Pyrrhic in nature.

So, if I understand correctly:

Achieving some legitimate degree of cultural/social acceptance concerning one's gender isn't ultimately worth what such gendered individuals stand to gain by not flaunting their identities and/or demanding acceptance.

What exactly do they stand to gain? Or rather, according to what better value (other than social acceptance) are they choosing to remain silent?