Reminder
nostalgebraist:
ozymandias271:
fnord888:
ozymandias271:
socialjusticemunchkin:
sonatagreen:
In accordance with the schedule, as of today (Sweetmorn, the 18th of Discord), the official debate topic is now Torture vs. Dust Specks. Please proceed accordingly.
This. Nobody has the neurons to comprehend 3^^^3 properly so all arguments resting on trying to replace it with a comprehensible number are invalid by definition.
every action you take has at least a 1/3^^^3 chance of causing or preventing torture
by extension if you’re a dust specker you should be making all your decisions based on whether or not they have a vanishingly small chance of affecting someone being tortured
Hey now, Pascal’s Wager is next month.
this is NOT pascal’s wager as it is not “small chance of infinite benefit” it is “small chance of (comparatively) small benefit” and is intended to point out that 3^^^3 is REALLY BIG
also is arguing ABOUT the thought experiment torture v. dust specks technically an instance of arguing about torture v. dust specks because I think it continues to be a bad idea to use torture in thought experiments unless the thought experiment is actually about “what if the bad thing???? were justified???? in an extreme circumstance?????” + also that kind of thought experiment is tacky and I hate it
ETA: HEY WAIT next month is “social justice: has it gone too far or not far enough?” NOT pascal’s wager, pascal’s wager has to wait for utilitarianism grab bag with everyone else, I am looking forward to claiming that all instances of bad SJ are in fact instances of insufficient SJ
torture vs. dust specks is controversial because no one agrees about how to do utilitarian aggregation, but without a known aggregation rule utilitarianism has no consequences (or rather, “utilitarianism” just means choosing an ad hoc aggregation rule case-by-case with no underlying theory), so the torture vs. dust specks debate shows that utilitarianism doesn’t (currently) exist
I am looking forward to claiming that all instances of bad SJ are in fact instances of insufficient SJ
You have my sword bow axe KBP V60 MTS-Q
3 months ago · tagged #steel feminism · 80 notes · source: sonatagreen · .permalink
shlevy:
Anyone know of an epistemological theory besides Objectivism’s that treats context, both in the sense of “the sum of things you already know from which further knowledge can arise/be made intelligible” and in the sense of “the particular goals and scope of action of the knower”, as fundamentally/inextricably an aspect of all knowledge?
Intersectional feminism? Knowledge, aka. reality-based conceptualizations of things, is not independent of the systems within which the conceptualization is done, and the systems themselves lend themselves towards certain kinds of action, and there are knowledges and actions that are effectively impossible within carelessly constructed conceptualizations, and this is kind of a low-effort post so I haven’t bothered to think things through much more thoroughly than “this sounds really familiar” (possibly a little bit relevant link)
3 months ago · tagged #insufficient effort post #steel feminism · 5 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink
An application for a job in the state feminist organization: a rap battle
Oh hi
I heard
you need a head
secretary substitute
and well
I thought
I’d be sufficiently
resolute
to take
over
and make
over
just like once
before
yes I’m that queer
child of a w-
-wait a minute are
you insulting the people I’m working for?
I expect that long
before
this message reaches
its destination
it will long have
been preceded
by my reputation
the community I
hijacked
the wetware I hacked
a lot of people were
sacked, several times replaced
by those who never
before had seen such a place
now we’ve built one
and whitespace is a word
that needs to stay
limited to my programming world
We take ideas
seriously, no point in wasting time
get called out, go
all out, pivot on a dime
we do a thorough
rebrand with a single solid argument
your sclerotic
democracy is a parody of government
endless
filibustering never updating beliefs
I’m sure
anti-feminists are sighing from relief
your arguments are
outdated your statistics so shitty
that the only way to
support them is purely out of pity
Now we’re a lean,
keen change-making machine
I admit sometimes
we’ve been a little bit mean
but our theory is
polished to an impeccable sheen
and you surely can
see the implacable gleam
in our eyes as we
set our sights on the prize
getting ready to
fight tired of paying the price of your dangerous lies
so often decried but
we won’t be defied denied the place you’ve defiled
flashing predator
smiles at the people reviled
“autogynephile”
welcome pot meet kettle
are you ready for a
match to truly test your mettle
or just content to
watch as the deals get settled
shutting out the
shut-ins hiding away the sins
ableism towards
those lacking your respect-ability
So let me see you
require a degree
so when did they
start issuing those on the streets
or the sheets of the
workers, forced to stay discreet
as your nordic model
citizens push deeper with their feet
yeah the foot in the
boot on the necks of the dregs
the social rejects
of this social democracy
the mockery and the crookery of the modern day rookery
yet it’s always
dismissed as an ivory tower
when we start
speaking our truth to your power
so you’re looking
for someone who knows their Irigaray and Butler
well let me tell you
this I’ve learned more useful shit on Tumblr
And seriously are
you such complete fools
the pay that you’re
offering is enough for two
in fact that’s
exactly what I’m planning to do!
Give you twice the
workers still with a fair compensation
skip paying for
pensions route it through a corporation
I’m expecting some
tensions but do you get the implication
have you ever
listened to our generation
in your middle-aged
blind faith in the goodness of your nation?
Since 1991 we’ve
been the targets of austerity
the cuts always
financing baby boomers’ own prosperity
we see behind the
rhetoric and know what they are saying
means we’ll never
see a cent of all the money we’d be paying
You may be in favor
of being looted by thy neighbour
but we millenials
will keep the fruits of our own labor
(and buy bednets
with ten percent of it
but you wouldn’t understand what I’m talking
about)
So yes, we’ll skip
funding the benefits
of the exact people
responsible for causing the decifits
of equal rights and
money alike
the ones who’d be
missing it are old dudes, not dykes
With the above in
mind I submit my application
ready to be
interviewed at your chosen location
keep in mind this is
an offer we won’t be offering twice
what you’re doing is
picking your sides
will you be ready to
reform or be swept aside
when I return one day with
an unstoppable tide
3 months ago · tagged #support your local supervillain #steel feminism #hamilton is a goddamn memetic hazard #stay away from it if you value your sanity · 3 notes · .permalink
Reblog if you think Feminism has not gone FAR ENOUGH
multiheaded1793:
tooth-and-nails:
argumate:
last time this only got 8 notes!
This is actually my biggest criticism of feminism and paradoxically it gets me labeled as an anti feminist.
I’m… a radical feminist deep down (if frequently more in the breach…) but people seem to think that “radical” just means “loud”.
I’m not a radical person, I just support radical ideas.
I should write the specifics into a post of their own, but basically most of the issues with feminism are issues with inconsistently and insufficiently applied feminism; so yes, it needs to go a lot further, including but not limited to, going further recursively.
3 months ago · tagged #steel feminism · 51 notes · source: argumate · .permalink
theunitofcaring:
so there’s this article arguing that feminists ought to focus some energy and effort on interventions in developing countries, as small allocations of resources can do a lot to improve the lives of women (and fight gender inequality) there, and that it’s a shortcoming of current feminist praxis that those problems are neglected in favor of attention-grabbing but much less tractable ones that mostly affect wealthy women.
the first response:
The author does not seem to understand the point of feminism. The reason that “tractable and important problems affecting poor women in poor countries” are not on the feminist agenda, is that they generally affect men to a similar degree. <…> Feminism is not simply about harm suffered by women, it about harm caused by an oppressive relationship of men to women. So feminists don’t protest against earthquakes, which kill thousands of women every year, because there is nothing gender-specific in an earthquake. Pornography, on the other hand, is very strongly gender-specific: most of it depicts women, in a way that feminists consider to be a harm, and it is largely made by men, for the benefit of men
The response is some of the deepest bullshit I’ve seen in quite some time. Even working from the assumption that feminism means reducing inequality instead of harm, material improvement in poor people’s situations tends to be really good at resulting in such effects. Also, #notmyfeminism on the pornography argument; it’s nowhere near that simple, especially when access to porn seems to be pretty good in reducing many harms feminists care about.
Also, Paul sounds like a person who’s male with a quite high probability. A male person is using intersectionality to argue that feminists shouldn’t focus on people with a lot of intersecting oppressions and instead do all kinds of wrong-headed stuff that’s way less effective and focuses on women with fewer intersecting oppressions. That’s about as fractally wrong as one can get and I can’t even
(via sdhs-rationalist)
3 months ago · tagged #steel feminism #i don't even know which specific genre of bullshit this falls into · 130 notes · source: theunitofcaring · .permalink
nostalgebraist:
multiheaded1793:
earthboundricochet:
osberend:
obiternihili:
ozymandias271:
a lot of SJ is weirdly soft on privileged people. like “oh, cis people have to do a continual process of unlearning transphobia overcoming the social conditioning of an entire society! it is so difficult!” no, actually, not being a transphobe is not that hard, it’s just that a lot of cis people don’t do it
i think this is the first time i’ve seen you criticise sj for not being stereotypical sj enough
MOAR STALINZ PLZ!
The hardest thing about not being a transphobe is that I am a trans person myself and still am 100% confused about why certain things/people are being called transphobic.
If even I, a Smol Oppressed Tran, am confused about What Makes Something Transphobic in a fair number of cases, how exactly is Clueless Average CisJoe supposed to tell?
I’m 100% this too
And moreover I have some beliefs/ideas that help describe my trans experience and the experience of some of the people I know, but are VERY LOUDLY AND AGGRESSIVELY denounced as “gross” and “transphobic” by a vast, representative swathe of the internet ~trans community~.
Fuck that.
The way I personally conceive of these things, the OP and the last two reblogs are not necessarily opposed?
Like, I think there is this tension between versions of SJ that tell privileged people to “just listen to marginalized people” and versions that tell them “unlearn your privileges, educate yourself, level up in non-oppressiveness”
I favor the former versions, because they can deal gracefully with the fact that marginalized people don’t actually agree about everything, and because the latter often turns into this never-ending Mundum-like injunction to become more and more “aware,” which leads privileged people to develop very specific beliefs about these issues and connect these beliefs to their self-worth (”I understand these complexities, so I’m possibly not a piece of shit”), and then get angry if and when these models don’t fit reality (”if your experience doesn’t fit my headcanon, then maybe I am a piece of shit”)
I’m not trying to say the problems mentioned by the last two posters are all the fault of cis people – not that I would know – but I do think the spread of these very complex, restrictive, difficult-to-understand versions of concepts is related to some people’s need for an ever-ascending scale of ways to be more “aware.”
4 months ago · tagged #basically this #steel feminism #nothing to add but tags · 134 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink
ozymandias271:
anyway here is my point. the whole “not being a dickbag to trans people requires A TON OF WORK AND CHECKING OF PRIVILEGE” narrative:
(a) lets transphobes off the hook
(b) is insulting to non-transphobic cis people
© leads some non-transphobic cis people to hate themselves
(d) leads other non-transphobic cis people to talk about how NOBLE they are because they have learned NOT TO ASK ABOUT ACQUAINTANCES’ GENITALS! SO HARD!
(e) lends credence to “trans* is transphobic!” nonsense because keeping track of a constantly shifting set of shibboleths actually is hard
and it is super-weird because while SJ legitimately might not care about (b)-(e) you would think they would at least manage to avoid (a)
Also, it’s incompatible with “not being a dickbag is such elementary stuff that it’s literally the basic minimum prerequisite for being a decent human being, not something you deserve extra credit ally cookies over”. Consistency, how does one do it.
I personally possibly endorse having a distinction between the layperson-accessible low-hanging fruit that should be an obligation to people, and the expert-level follow-the-theory-to-weird-places-to-see-if-there’s-something-there stuff that (e) kind of is about but with more self-awareness.
Physics would be an apt comparison; the layperson needs to know enough to not cause harm via bad policy or shitty decisions, and then there’s the experts who do things like “let’s check out if the universe is actually an 11-dimensional hologram and see what the implications would be for stuff we could engineer out of it, and also if you don’t know what you’re doing just don’t do it because we don’t want people doing really embarrassing amateur quantum physics”.
All in all SJ needs to acknowledge that this distinction is possible and allowable and not everyone should try to be an expert in hardcore intersectionalist gender theory any more than people need to be experts in quantum physics. I suspect a lot of the frustration around (e) comes from people thinking they need to keep track of constantly shifting shibboleths but can’t do it that well, but can’t admit it because of signaling pressures to keep up with the cutting edge and as a result end up sounding like Deepak Chopra when they espouse what’s basically a cargo-cult version of last year’s cutting edge instead of being like “I’m not an expert in this stuff but I trust the physicists when they say nuclear power isn’t actually that horrible” as they should.
It’s probably useful to have some small subset of people chasing theory to weird places just to see if there are some useful insights to be found, but they should recognize that that’s what it is and that it’s a completely different thing from the minimum criteria for a decent human being. Also, this feels like an interesting hack for replacing the stick with a carrot; instead of being just barely decent human beings while everyone else is horribly failing at it the experts could feel like high-status people who are successfully doing something cool and rare while others are okay too, and only the ones who do the Deepak Chopra quantum physics woo equivalent of gender theory, like TERFs, need to be scorned.
[epistemic status: literally inconclusive but feeling like putting some strong intuitions into words and generating important insights]
4 months ago · tagged #specialization of labour: it exists for a reason #steel feminism · 46 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink
argumate:
I guess what bothers me about the bullying thing is that it’s another triumph of identity politics, in that a bullied kid needs to have a named political faction that they can call on to defend them from their peers.
eg. protect nonbinary kids! protect trans kids! protect gay kids! protect kids of the non-dominant ethnic group! and so on.
Yes, these are all worthy causes. But what about kids who are just too quiet, or too loud, or look a little weird, or just don’t fit in with the others?
I mean, at some point protecting bullied kids is a necessary step.
If a straight kid gets bullied for being gay, because kids don’t give a shit about whether anyone actually really is gay, then is that structural oppression? And is setting up a LGBT-friendly student society actually going to help that kid?
It feels like identity politics is being used as a hammer on every problem.
On the other hand being able to name the thing which causes people to be bullied can be instrumentally useful. If a straight kid is bullied for being mistaken for gay, then yes eradicating homophobia could help with their problem, and the people whose job it is to remove structural oppression might be useful in that.
In addition, it can be argued that the basic mechanisms of bullying are extremely deep-seated in human psychology and vicious status systems, so trying to remove bullying itself might be less effective than removing pretenses of bullying which leaves less openings for it to happen. Knocking down ladders of hierarchy (and replacing them with status assigned on meaningful grounds, if removing status differentials altogether is too hard) is probably likely to aid in that.
However, there is definitely the thing where kids select the one which has the “bullying target” trait and then decide which status ladder to claim they fail on as the pretense (“gay” etc.) and at most removing the pretenses would make them make up a different one for that kid.
That doesn’t mean that the “bullying target” trait isn’t something to intervene on, just that it’s probably a harder problem. The weird kids are definitely suffering from other forms of structural oppression, just ones that we haven’t managed to pin down and name as easily yet (growth mindset!). “Bullied” is a vague and nebulous cluster in thingspace and clearly carves reality at strong joints, but it’s hard to see what exactly is the core issue and how to turn removing that into an actionable strategy, so the best we have been able to do so far is either generic anti-bullying, or identity politics which finds a more easily definable subset of the whole and focuses on the simpler question of doing something about that one. Both have their strengths and sometimes fatal flaws.
Being normative in ways that aren’t strongly linked to valueful things (it’s good to enforce the norm of “don’t yell at people who mind being yelled at” when done within reason and not overzealously enough to hurt those less able to control their voice, but not useful to try to force everyone to conform to “talk to people enough to seem normal even if you don’t have anything to say to them and the whole thing makes you uncomfortable”, also different spaces for different access needs can be very awesome in this) does confer privileges, and ableism etc. are kind of approaching some edges of this but I haven’t seen the core thing itself named. If someone came up with a practically applicable theory for that one it could be inserted into the tool labeled “identity politics” and the people who know how to use that tool effectively could do something useful about it. Or alternatively an entirely different tool could be developed but it would need to pull the right memetic levers; there’s a reason “let’s just not bully anyone mmmkay” pretty much never actually helps.
(In other words, feel welcome to give links and suggestions: I do have those 4000 SJWs to inject the memes into, after all. And to anyone who is reading this: you’re probably erring on the side of underestimating the value of your possible contribution. Unless it features slurs or other easily recognizable features of schoolyard bullying it’s unlikely be completely worthless and it could provide some important insight to this stuff at least indirectly. Some really good ideas have come from “okay this is wrong, but why exactly is this wrong?”)
(Also, the kids who called me gay all the time turned out to be totally right after all; it was my gender they had been mistaken on)
(via endecision)
4 months ago · tagged #steel feminism · 291 notes · source: argumate · .permalink
theunitofcaring:
“I do not support drafting women and forcing them to be combat soldiers,” Mr. Rubio said.
“the idea that we would draft our daughters, to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close contact – I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.” said Cruz.
…congratulations? you are 50% of the way to the really really obvious conclusion?
4 months ago · tagged #steel feminism #nothing to add but tags · 251 notes · source: theunitofcaring · .permalink
How 4000 rabid SJWs learned to stop worrying and love Slatestarcodex
Sooo I’ve finally got a proper keyboard to write on and that means the one thing some have been really waiting for (at least I have): an account of how on earth Scott Alexander of all people secretly (and until recently, unknowingly) kind of controls the most radical major faction of finnish feminism.
That One Feminist Community is nowadays nationally notorious; something spoken of indirectly but often, and most of the relevant people immediately recognize which community people are talking about, when they do. It all started a bit more than a couple of years ago; there was this one community of feminists, by white cisgender studies majors, for white cisgender studies majors. An unimpressive garden dying from its own pacifism, it had a pretty major problem with creeps, TERFs, SWERFs, 101ers and other time-wasting people whose entropic pressure eventually degrades any unwalled feminism-related garden into an endless bog of pointless debates on stupid questions. Not good. Not Steel Feminism (I’ll be using that name for mine so I don’t need to get drawn in debates on whether stupid position X is feminism or not, because I can definitely say it’s not Steel Feminism and that’s the only one I’ll bother to defend; straw and weak feminisms are bad and people who do them should feel bad).
I had been arguing with the undesirables a lot when the admins finally realized that they weren’t doing their jobs and asked for assistance. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for a lot of people whose existence most weren’t even aware of, I was the most credible candidate for the job: an obsessive no-lifer on sick leave who was already doing that exact thing without a badge. My style of arguing was aggressive but it would get the job done. Oh yes, it would get the job done way more than any of them anticipated. (I’ve mellowed a lot since then, due to some interesting status psychology dynamics stuff I’ll explain more in a later post; basically “Niceness, Community and Civilization” isn’t the only stable low-conflict equilibrium in existence, and “An Armed Discourse is a Polite Discourse” is in my experience more suitable for situations with a substantial fraction of lower-quality participants; and reading Living By The Sword pointed out a pretty strong failure mode to me, I updated and decided to do things so that I’d keep a more comfortable distance to that failure mode)
The group’s rules said that offenders are given three warnings before a ban, except in exceptional situations. In other words: “stay as long as you wish, ruining the atmosphere for everyone else, nobody who can do anything about it is going to do anything about it”. And when all one has is emergency powers, everything starts looking like an emergency. I’d deliberately provoke the people I wanted to remove, get them all heated up, and suddenly spin around and appear with my badge and banhammer, ready to kick them out for doing the exact same stuff I was doing five minutes ago. Showy, effective, and absolutely ridiculously unfair. I got close to the edge once, and the other mods were discussing taking away my badge but I called their bluff with the brilliant negotiating strategy of “just ignore the problem until it goes away” and it did; I was indispensable and consequently untouchable, as most of the people I did purge were actual creeps, douches and other universally agreed undesirables. “First they came for the creeps, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a creep…”
…Finally they came for the white feminists, and the white feminists had nobody to speak for them because there was nobody left who was interested in defending those who think the solution to “these women might have their choices in clothing restricted to conform to prevailing norms” is “therefore we need to restrict their choice in clothing to conform to prevailing norms”. The purges gradually expanded to cover everyone who spoke out against steel feminism. Sex work abolitionists, transphobes, racists, conservatives, and all other varieties of less-universally agreed undesirables were removed one after another, policing of people’s actions and words expanded outside the group, jokes about Stasi became a regularity among the mods as the old ones left in disgust and were replaced by new ones who agreed with my vision, and flashy public declarations made it absolutely clear that the new way was not like the old way.
As this reign of terror continued, the community turned into a desolate wasteland of who am I kidding it absolutely ballooned in size despite constantly tightening its admission criteria so that nowadays joining it is almost like a post-ww2 job interview. (that, my friends, is what an underserved market looks like) Over 4000 members, about 250 waiting to get in right now, and if one calculates it as a fraction of the population it’s equivalent to a quarter million americans. Of course, one shouldn’t do it that way, it’s absolutely verboten to do it that way, but if one did do it in the verboten way it’d be a quarter million. Just saying.
One key factor in this was that the enforcement of the rules was brutal, but pretty fair for what’s essentially an “exit, no voice” community run by the arbitary fiat of the ruling junta of me and my cronies. I made it a priority to be especially relentless in crushing those whose bullshit could superficially appear to be on the “right side” of identitarian tribal politics; one remarkable situation was where one comment suggesting that it’s not that bad for a woman to sexually assault a man led to instant banhammering and a million flies complaining about how the rape apologist in question wasn’t given a second chance. I pointed out that nobody would’ve asked for mercy if the genders had been reversed, and won a fuckload of respect among the consistent and a fuckload of reputation as someone who simply doesn’t give a shit about the popular opinion among the hypocritical. I’m the Vlad Tepes of feminism, what are people going to do about it, other than go somewhere else?
Of course, there was, and still is, a consistent outflux of people; the banned ones, and the ones who didn’t want to wait to get banned. Nowadays there is a regular fire cycle where approximately twice a year somebody notices the strict enforcement of rules, gets upset, gathers a splinter group, and finds out the hard way why our membership criteria are so strict as all the barbarians whom our high walls keep away join the splinter group, ruining it. Alternatively they turn into That One Feminist Community Lite (now with 100% less promethea!) as a result of adopting relatively strict rules themselves.
The tyranny of That One Feminist Community is kept in check by accountability, as ultimately its point is to create value for the target audience. One important way of creating such value is to actively invert the standard hierarchies of who gets heard and who gets taken seriously. We don’t care if we need to silence men to give women space, or white people to make it so that PoC can feel comfortable discussing their experiences with racism in white feminism, or cis people to let trans people genuinely define themselves. Those people have the rest of the world for themselves, and while we don’t want to invert the rest of the world, having That One place where the roles are reversed is important. (A lot of people seem terminally unable to understand the difference of “we think there should be That One space which caters to these specific access needs” and “we want to make the entire world be the same”, which is frustrating to no end. Okay, there are some norms we want to universalize like “no rape apologia, regardless of the genders of the people involved” but that’s not the same thing.)
Now this is where things get interesting. I’ve established myself as a prominent figurehead of an unapologetically radical community with merciless enforcement of norms consistent to a degree relatively unheard-of in most communities. In other words, I’m un-bingocardable because people trust me not to be X even if I say things that superficially sound like X, and I have a reputation for doing such stuff all the time. It’s for the good of the community even if people don’t understand it immediately, but they usually do because they don’t feel the need to reject it immediately on identitarian grounds and I don’t do weak arguments. Weak arguments aren’t steel feminism. I’m the one pointing the conceptual superweapon which means it can’t be pointed at me even if I tell people to point it away from someone. That’s powerful and very important, and this is the point where Scott becomes relevant.
Controlling the memetic environment is one of the most powerful ways of “brainwashing” people. When one gets to decide what’s normal, one gets to decide what people’s brains automatically conform to without the need for conscious attention. This gets used a lot. The things not subject to debate are the most important things, and one of such things is staying true to reality even (especially) if it’s more complex and nuanced than naive theories would suggest. I get away with using “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics 5″ as a source right there in the open, just by doing some rhetorical trickery around it. (”I don’t agree with it 100% but I’m not going to say it’s really wrong in any specific claims it makes”) Hardcore intersectionality allows us to frame pretty much anyone in pain as being oppressed by something and therefore their pain needs to be at the very least not contributed to by us (the reason why feminists care about structural oppression more than they care about other kinds of suffering is the same reason oncologists care about cancer more than cluster headaches, but the basic fundamental is still to reduce pain and injustice in the world), and thus we even defend people like RooshV when they’re attacked in unfair ways. Bad feminists don’t give a shit about the collateral damage they do to non-shitlord basement dwellers when there’s an opportunity to use the low status of basement-dwellerness against a shitlord, but we aren’t that kind of feminists and the prior for such people getting a banhammer in their posterior in Our Community is pretty damn close to 1 if they don’t cut that oppressive crap.
This commitment to reality first has also the amusing side effects of making the moderate conservative feminists far more unreasonable in their claims. The people who say stuff like “practically all abusers are male” [motherfucking sic from their website!] are the established and respected state feminists we constantly criticize (as an organization, some of our best friends can be members but the organization itself is corrupt and propped up by some old-ass bourgie capital and democratic inertia instead of good arguments), while the “evil misandrist radical feminazis” believe the reality is far less simplistic and abused men face may kinds of systematic erasure and unique problems that differ from the experiences of abused women. It’s kind of hilarious, and kind of sad, but most importantly it’s kind of extremely useful as steel feminism is deliberately bulletproofed against empirical attacks by appropriating those attacks and incorporating the evidence in itself. My long-term plan is to create a situation where people with reasonable moral axioms and any degree of consistency in their beliefs have no other choice than to join steel feminism, at least in substance if not in style, and then all those people win and the bad SJ gets purged along with everything else that hurts people and all kinds of access needs will be accommodated in their own places.
And that’s how 4000 radicals will be made to believe every sufficiently solid argument that comes out of slatestarcodex, at least eventually, depending on how difficult inserting it as an unchallenged background assumption into the memetic environment will be.
Also did I mention I did this while on sick leave, for social anxiety and depression of all things? Yeah, taking over locally influential political movements is “side hobby”-level stuff for me. Taking over the world is “actual ambition”.
4 months ago · tagged #win-win is my superpower #steel feminism #ambitious trans girls · 4 notes · .permalink