« 'Asylum Seekers' | Main | Political 'Toons and Memes »

Friday, May 12, 2023

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

(Speaking of the subversion of language,) a suggestion:

The popular terminology of "left" and "right" is, I think, unhelpful in many respects. In essence, it is the construct of revolutionary historians and parliamentarians who use it to model politics after the symbol of the National Assembly. It didn't come into frequent use in the United States until around the middle of the 20th century, likely because before the 20th century, U.S. politics most explicitly revolved around federalism v. anti-federalism, and insofar as we had a two-party system, the system tended to represent that tension. Since the U.S. became the global center of power, its politics became more and more modeled after the progress v. regress narrative, and at least since Nixon times the Republican Party has been the unprincipled and constantly-updating reactive force against the progress end of that equation. Because the movement has no principle other than "unify around reacting against 'the left'", the movement is constantly changing in order to keep up with left.

If "being further to the right" means dressing like some puff biker and assaulting women, and "being more moderately right" means having solidarity with and (yet worse) giving my attention to a Zionist and a pornography apologist, I'm really not sure I want anything to do with the label at all. I typically don't reject the characterization of "right wing" (out of humility), but if someone asks me where I "lean", I just say that I am a Christian in order to save myself the embarrassment and the false assignment of my values and beliefs. Two-dimensional models impose horribly inaccurate frame on political reality, which, if thinking geometrically, harmonizes much more with something like a self-assembling pyramidal structure.

I think it is Daniel Penny who is accused of manslaughter in the case of the death of Jordan Neely, and Daniel Perry who was recently sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing an armed BLM protester who approached his car in Austin. Both cases are miscarriages of justice.

Will B,

Thanks for catching my mistake! Here is the PERRY case: https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/former-soldier-daniel-perry-sentenced-to-25-years-for-killing-blm-protester/

There is no "toxic masculinity".

There are perhaps "toxic males", such as the bikers in your example, but a million toxic males does not make for "toxic masculinity", any more than a trillion badly acting humans makes for "toxic humanity".

Look, by "toxic masculinity", the Progs mean to say that masculinity just IS toxic, inherently; they are NOT simply making the (asinine) observation that "some males act badly".

And this is their modus operandi: use words in a way that seems innocent enough, but alter the referents in just so subtle a way that their otherwise resistant interlocutors engage them in good faith on their novel usage, and thereby legitimize it.

What the Progs are actually attempting to do, is to systematize the feminization of men, by demonizing the genetic predisposition of males of the species toward physical aggression. They desperately need a compliant citizenry, and as long as there are "manly men" around, willing and able to go to war against threats to hearth and home, the position of the Progs will always be tenuous. So they're going to the lengths that they're going, in order to inculcate a generation of males with the idea that their masculinity is abhorrent, and "gurrl power!".

And so we have the widespread acceptance of male homosexuality, followed not-so-shortly by its valorisation, then gay marriage, and then gay adoption, and then the trans-craze along with its attendant drag-queen story-hour movement: men should be (second-rate) women, and women should be (second-rate) men, starting from the cradle.

These people do NOT respect and share your quest for intellectual and linguistic precision and clarity, man, and so, admitting to distinctions that, to them, have no difference, is to have lost the battle before you've even begun to fight.

My approach for years: I am having a conversation, and someone describes something as "racist". I promptly say, "There's no such thing as racism".

The stunned silence is typically ended by confused, red-faced blustering about how I must be mad.

Then I calmly say, "Okay: tell me what racism is."

To blank stares.

I usually get no answer at all (not even gestures in the direction of a definition), but only deflection and invective. But the more putatively thoughtful of my conversants (including fellow lawyers) eventually cobble together a definition that is either uselessly broad, or uselessly specific (i.e. either everyone is racist, or no one.)

Whether or not a seed is sown in them from such exchanges, the palpability of their discomfiture is delightful.

Anyway. Just some thoughts from the trenches.

Regarding those conservatives who claim there is no such thing as toxic masculinity, maybe this is what they have in mind. I would argue that toxic masculinity is a perversion of the masculine virtues. Thus "toxic masculinity" is simular to "toxic justice", "toxic temperance" or "toxic fortitude". It's only toxic in the sense that it is a perversion, either in excess or deficiency, of virtue. With that said, there are many behaviors that would count as "toxic masculinity". I'm thinking of someone like Andrew Tate. He thinks he's real masculine, but he's just sexually perverse.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29    
Blog powered by Typepad