Submission to authority is voluntary. Submission to authority is mandatory.
August 20, 2013 § 19 Comments
Yes, it is both/and not either/or.
Refraining from committing murder is voluntary. It is also mandatory.
Refraining from committing adultery is voluntary. It is also mandatory.
Submitting to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church is voluntary. It is also mandatory.
Wives yielding to their husbands (in the words of the Catechism of Trent) “in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and obsequious obedience” is voluntary. It is also mandatory.
Doing the right thing is always voluntary. It is also always mandatory.
Modern people have a peculiar habit of interpreting the possibility of rebellion as a putative justification for committing rebellion.
Zippy Catholic 
Yes, it is both/and not either/or.
Precisely.
Well put. Thanks for the linkage.
Spot on.
Oh, but the comment threads….
Here’s what seems to be the manosphere playbook for dealing with an opposing argument:
1.) Link the person making the opposing argument to some out-group, either based on their content (e.g. anyone saying anything remotely smacking of sympathy for feminism is a “white knight”), or based on the poster’s age, ethnicity, or marital statuse.
2.) Take turns beating on the out group, how the poster’s membership in the outgroup explains a lot about their posts, and try to out-do each other in how much you hate the Romans.
This isn’t what happened to me, but to others there, and all the posturing is quite unpleasant to watch.
John:
I think personal attacks are prevalent everywhere on the Net. But what is qualitatively different in the manosphere (especially comboxes), which I’ve pointed out myself at times, is the “metanarrative” tendency: applying the “red pill” theoretical categories (white knight, AMOG, beta, etc) to actual combox discussion participants whom (1) we don’t know from Adam as a way to (2) tell them to shut up. Follow up with a bunch of textual high-fives.
Note that I am speaking generally.
“But what is qualitatively different in the manosphere (especially comboxes), which I’ve pointed out myself at times, is the “metanarrative” tendency: applying the “red pill” theoretical categories (white knight, AMOG, beta, etc) to actual combox discussion participants whom (1) we don’t know from Adam as a way to (2) tell them to shut up. Follow up with a bunch of textual high-fives.”
The howlers: http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/howlers.htm
Scott:
Yes, definitely howlers, but with an addition. Everywhere that there are newbies and veterans there will be howlers, unless the community has very strong self discipline. What is different is that sex differences in behaviour, feminism, etc are the actual subject matter of the manosphere. So “you are a newbie idiot” gets translated into “you are beta/white knight/etc”. Newbies aren’t just newbies as to specific subject matter and arguments; they are “blue pill” and contemptible.
The trolls do complicate matters. Manosphere comboxes definitely get troll invasions by feminists who are familiar with the subject matter and are just there to stir things up.
All in all it makes for a combox experience that is – quite understandably – not to everyone’s taste.
*like*
[…] Property is an authority that we, as proprietors, hold over other human beings. Authority, in turn, is a capacity to create specific moral obligations that others are morally required to carry out. As with all legitimate forms of authority, compliance with a proprietor’s authority is both mandatory and voluntary. […]
[…] literally crafts moral obligations which bind the consciences of those subject to it; in turn, those subject to authority choose the good when they act in obedience to legitimate authority. But real authority which produces genuine moral obligations does not ultimately derive from the […]
Post-modernism – which is to say, modernism followed out to its absurd conclusions – effects a phase change from “what is not forbidden is permitted” to “what is possible is cool.” The whole forbidden/permitted dimension of analysis has dropped off the radar.
[…] Zippy Catholic explains that Submission to Authority is Voluntary. Submission to Authority is Mandatory. […]
[…] My issues with the Manosphere, in large part, are summarized here: […]
[…] know that there are always due limits to the authority of men because of the nature of authority: because authority produces moral obligations, and it is literally impossible to produce or […]
[…] are free to choose good or evil, but we are not free to choose what is good or what is […]
[…] of governance: particular arrangements of political authority with subjects, that is, people subject to that governing authority. Liberals tend to be obsessed with the precise structure of governance, because to the extent […]
[…] In this way, we can now understand what Zippy means when he claims all politics are authoritarian. We have established that the true libertarian-authoritarian axis is centered not on social attitudes or statism, but rather on coercion. So, why does that mean that libertarianism isn’t a valid concept? Is it not true that there are systems that coerce more and systems that coerce less. From a certain point of view, sure. But when we step back, we realize this difference in coercion is not actually meaningful. […]
[…] In this way, we can now understand what Zippy means when he claims all politics are authoritarian. We have established that the true libertarian-authoritarian axis is centered not on social attitudes or statism, but rather on coercion. So, why does that mean that libertarianism isn’t a valid concept? Is it not true that there are systems that coerce more and systems that coerce less. From a certain point of view, sure. But when we step back, we realize this difference in coercion is not actually meaningful. […]
[…] on their part to leave. Whether they do or do not actually choose to leave at that point is an exercise of their free will; but what they literally cannot do, in an act of free will, is destroy the moral obligation that […]