Babel rising

May 13, 2014 § 82 Comments

Statistically speaking, I’d guess that when someone in our modern culture uses the word “racism” in a discussion to accuse someone else of racism the odds are better than even that I would substantively agree with the position of the accused not the accuser.

That doesn’t mean that racism isn’t real or isn’t morally wrong.  Racism is a real thing, and it is morally wrong.

But as a matter of how the word gets used statistically in conversation I am these days more likely to agree with the accused than with the accuser, because the function of the word in the discussion is as a kind of talisman or incantation to tarnish a particular point of view as beyond the pale.  And since “beyond the pale” these days tends to mean “not authentically liberal enough”, ceteris paribus I am more likely to be in substantive agreement with the illiberal point of view than the liberal point of view.

There are plenty of words like this, and they multiply and proliferate as our nominalist society attempts to win cultural territory through the conquest of language.  “Misogynist”.  “Unpatriotic”.  Heck, even “homophobic”, although I don’t think I’ve ever met a bona fide homophobe.

There is probably even a word for this kind of word, though I am not hipster enough to know it offhand.  And even if you told it to me, what guarantee is there that we could even understand each other?

§ 82 Responses to Babel rising

  • Marissa says:

    Fnord might be the word you’re looking for. The explanations online are disappointing. I remember reading “The Illuminatus! Trilogy” as a teenager and remember the word meant something like “words used in the media that don’t actually mean anything and instead generate feelings”. I believe I read it in 2005, so the word that came to mind most strongly in relation to “fnord” was “terrorism”. “Racist” and “sexist” work very well too.

  • Scott W. says:

    I find I have the same reaction to white privilege that I do when I go to a natural history museum and see the mural of the ape gradually becoming more human: that it’s one big post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

  • CJ says:

    When I read threads like this one, I’m reminded of the excuse that people often make for JPII “he didn’t act decisively on the Scandal because the commies would make false child molestation claims to silence priests, so he was conditioned to tune them out.” It seems that non-leftists get more exercised about the misuse of the term than about actual racism, sexism, etc.

  • Mike T says:

    Off topic, but amusing: Aquinas Dad has entered the lion’s den at Alpha Game Plan. I wonder how long it’ll be before he challenges Vox Day to some sort of argument.

  • sunshinemary says:

    But as a matter of how the word gets used statistically in conversation I am these days more likely to agree with the accused than with the accuser, because the function of the word in the discussion is as a kind of talisman or incantation to tarnish a particular point of view as beyond the pale. And since “beyond the pale” these days tends to mean “not authentically liberal enough”, ceteris paribus I am more likely to be in substantive agreement with the illiberal point of view than the liberal point of view.

    This is how I think about the word “right” now. “Women have the right to free birth control!” for example. The word “right” now just means whatever thing people who embrace liberalism want. If you have a penis but decide you’re a girl on the inside, you have the “right” to be called “she” and possibly even to tax-payer funded surgery, and if someone dares to say, “Hey, I am not sure gender reassignment surgery is really a right,” that person is accused of trying to “take people’s rights away from them!” Such an accusation serves the purpose of tarnishing their illiberal point of view.

  • Scott W. says:

    excuse that people often make for JPII “he didn’t act decisively on the Scandal because the commies would make false child molestation claims to silence priests, so he was conditioned to tune them out

    This is the first I’ve heard of this.

  • CJ says:

    Here’s one example. It’s not one that I’d read before. I just found it by Googling. I’ve seen it in several other places, but my memory is refusing to cooperate.

    “The experience of John Paul in Poland under Communist and Nazi rule, where innocent priests were often discredited by trumped-up accusations, is believed to have influenced his general defensiveness of the clergy.”‘

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/as-pope-john-paul-ii-is-made-a-saint-what-did-he-know-about-the-sexualabuse-that-festered-under-his-watch-9275465.html

  • Scott,

    I’ve heard something sort of kind of like that, though I think wording it like that makes it sound an awful lot like a straw man.

  • CJ,

    That’s kind of what I thought. “Influenced his defensiveness” is worlds away from “he was conditioned to tune out people who accused Priests of being child molesters”.

  • Scott W. says:

    Thanks malcolm. My experience is that when laymen from either the Left or Right encounter a story of abuse or cover up, most of them appropriately want the perp turned over to the police and anyone covering for them at least tossed out on their ear.

    I think it is similar with sexism and racism. Show us an act of overt racism or sexism and I think everyone here would condemn it. But that’s not what the past few decades have been about. Rather, it’s been about training the untermensch in Crimestop So yeah, pardon us if we get a little exercised about rash judgement.

  • c matt says:

    Well, CJ, if it is anyone’s fault that non-leftists feel that way, it is probably the leftists’, After crying wolf over racism, sexism and every-other-ism for so long, it is not difficult to be skeptical of the use of the term.

  • Marissa says:

    I can’t see how all sexism is a bad thing. So even if I see an act of overt sexism, it has to actually be morally wrong. For instance, not allowing women into the military, or fire corps, or police, is sexism–discrimination based on sex–but not morally wrong. Not only are most women physically incapable of performing the tasks involved, even the extremely small minority who is capable disrupt the male dynamic in negative ways. And acting like men, ensconcing themselves in male places, is not good for femininity or chastity. And yet a typical leftist who reads what I just wrote would accuse me of sexist oppression. You’ll have to convince me that sexism, as defined by discrimination based on sex, is wrong in the first place.

    The vast majority of people in the entire world are sexist based on their exclusive choice of mates from the opposite sex.

  • Zippy says:

    Marissa:

    I think that there is such a thing as misogyny: hating women simply because they are women, or treating women as chattel, etc.

    But I agree that most of what is considered sexism in modern liberal societies is not morally wrong.

  • Marissa says:

    Yes, you’re right, Zippy. Maybe that’s what sexism and racism should mean. Hatred of the particular sex or race in question, not discrimination against them.

  • “Sexism” in liberal parlance means noticing that men and women are different. One of the symptoms of this refusal to notice those differences is the prevalence of 90 pound waifs taking on six linebackers at once in melee combat in fiction these days.

  • Scott W. says:

    After crying wolf over racism, sexism and every-other-ism for so long, it is not difficult to be skeptical of the use of the term.

    Indeed. Here is Mia McKenzie in all her argumentum ad baculum glory (my emphasis):

    —I see the appeal to white folks in thinking about racism this way. The “whack job” approach allows people to separate racist thinking and behavior from themselves. It’s that crazy screaming dude over there who’s racist. It’s your drunk uncles. It’s your he-was-so-quiet-and-seemed-so-normal-before-he-walked-into-the-mall-and-started-shooting-people neighbors. All of whom you can shake your heads at with furrowed brows while proclaiming that you’re “not like that.”

    But you are.

    White people, you need to get this: you are racist. The first step is admitting that you are part of the problem.

    I am not going to tell you why or how you are racist. I’m not here for your education.

    And here’s an account of a white woman completely absorbed borg-like by quasi-religious anti-racism with a stolen narrative of Guilt and Redemption:

    —Sandy, Jim, and Karen work at a downtown community center where they help low-income residents apply for rental housing. Sandy has a bad feeling about Jim: She notices that when black clients come in, he tends to drift to the back of the office. Sandy suspects racism. (She and Jim are both white.) On the other hand, she also notices that Jim seems to get along well with Karen, who is black. As the weeks go by, Sandy becomes more uncomfortable with the situation. But she feels uncertain about how to handle it. Test question: What should Sandy do?

    If you answered that Sandy’s first move should be to talk to Karen, and ask how Jim’s behavior made her feel, you are apparently a better antiracist than I am: That, for what it’s worth, was the preferred solution offered by my instructor at Thinking About Whiteness and Doing Anti-Racism, a four-part evening workshop for community activists, presented in early 2010 at the Toronto Women’s Bookstore.

    My own answer, announced loud in class, was that Sandy should approach Jim discretely, explaining to him how others in the office might perceive his actions. Or perhaps the manager of the community center could be asked to give a generic presentation about the need to treat clients in a color-blind manner, on a no-names basis.

    The problem with my approach, the instructor indicated, lay in the fact that I was primarily concerned with the feelings of my fellow Caucasian Jim. I wasn’t treating Karen like a “full human being” who might have thoughts and feelings at variance with her superficially friendly workplace attitude.

    Moreover, I was guilty of “democratic racism”– by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles, such as “due process”, constantly demanding clear “evidence” of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head on. “It seems we’re always looking for more proof,” said the instructor, an energetic thirtysomething left-wing activist named Sheila Wilmot who’s been teaching this course for several years. “When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut.”

    I felt the urge to pipe up at this. Racism is either a serious charge or it’s not. And if it is, as everyone in this room clearly believed, then it cannot be flung around casually without giving the accused a chance to explain his actions. But I said nothing, and nodded my head along with everyone else. I’d come to this class not to impose my democratic racism on people, but to observe.—

    From Jonathan Kay’s Among the Truthers: A Journey through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground.

  • Racism is a real thing, and it is morally wrong.

    I think that’s going to be a difficult proof if there’s any truth to this history of the word, i.e., that the word was coined consciously and specifically to pathologize universal and normal human group preferences for political and ideological reasons.

    I think I know the thing that you’re thinking of. But “racism” is an absolutely terrible word for it.

  • Zippy says:

    Unjust behavior motivated by race is real enough and common enough that I don’t really have a problem with using its common name. Americans really did frequently treat African slaves despicably, as an obvious example.

    Folks need to keep in mind that one reason liberalism became utterly triumphant is because human beings really can and often do behave very unjustly toward each other; and that many times people have rationalized committing grave injustices by appealing to the kinds of true facts that liberalism attempts to banish from reality.

    Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and any number of erratic train schedules and real injustices have been corrected under liberal regimes.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    Looks like you’ve stumbled on exosemantics. http://nydwracu.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/why-anarcho-fascism-an-introduction-to-group-dynamics/

    You’re suggesting that the word “racism” is used more frequently as a tool to malign someone’s status rather than for its meaning. This dovetails with Wittgenstein perfectly, but I doubt you really want to go down that rabbit hole lest you need to accuse yourself of nominalism for suggesting that the meanings of words are just their use.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce Laliberte:

    but I doubt you really want to go down that rabbit hole lest you need to accuse yourself of nominalism

    Ah, the apologia for male sluttiness a.k.a. Game inevitably rears its … well, some part of its anatomy or other.

    I guess at least some folks may notice that there is no inconsistency here: there is such a thing as racism (whatever it is called), and it cannot be unmade/remade into something else through linguistic gambit. All that the conquistadors of language accomplish is to destroy our capacity to communicate meaning unequivocally. Much like the conquistadors of “Game”, who hope to redeem it by recasting it as something other than male sluttiness.

    All of which is perfectly consistent with the post title.

    I’ve pointed out before that the ad hominem fallacy works both ways, if you will: “Bob is a good man, therefore his argument is sound” represents the same fallacy as “Fred is a wicked man, therefore his argument is unsound”. A similar thing is going on here: the baptism of various bits of wickedness through linguistic gambit is the mirror image of the condemnation of what is good and natural through linguistic gambit.

  • Zippy says:

    Let me put it this way:

    I am approximately equivalently sympathetic to the ideas of “Christian Game” and “Christian racism”, for similar reasons.

  • I hate to steal my own thunder, but (it wasn’t much anyway)… Unjust prejudice is a sin. But because it is unjust, not because it is prejudice. And the word “racism” as a potential substitute tips strongly the other way in connotation.

    If anything, the shoe is on the other foot now Zippy. I’m not arguing for Christian Racism. I’m saying that racism is not a thing. It is (and only is) an epithet, like “poopy-head”. That it has, from it’s first translation into English from a revolutionary tract, never meant the meaning you wish to ascribe to it, but has always only been a way to demonize one’s political opponents by ascribing to pathology otherwise normal and universally prevalent human emotions.

    The reason liberalism is regnant is because liberals know how to do propaganda and we don’t.

  • Zippy says:

    We just need to match their lies with our own.

  • Zippy says:

    Long time readers may notice that to the postmodern anti-essentialists among us, racism is (like torture) an anti-concept. It isn’t just that the concept gets misused in lies and propaganda: it doesn’t have any essence at all.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @NBS and Bryce

    (If I grok Zippy’s use of nominalism)

    You haven’t yet made the case that racism either

    A) doesn’t have an essence.

    B) That it’s essence is not “unjust behavior motivated by race”.

    C) That Trotsky is not actually talking about the essence of “unjust behavior motivated by race” in an unjust way; which he does seem to be in that quote from the page you linked.

    It’s not that the Slavophile’s weren’t racist, but that by Trotsky’s measure the Russian government wasn’t actually Slavic and that Slav’s praised their Slavishness because of an assumed democracy* that in fact did not exist (according to Trotsky).

    In other words: Trotsky seems to be illegitimately linking Slavic solidarity with the essence of “unjust behavior motivated by race”, and thereby make them (Slavs; particularly in the ruling classes) guilty by their association (the association of solidarity and “unjust behavior motivated by race”) among Slavic people.

    *By which I gather he meant “common will of the people”, or, “what everyone wants”.

  • […] latest real thing to be cast as an anti-concept is racism: the assertion is that racism isn’t really anything at all, it is just an epithet expressing […]

  • Svar says:

    Let me talk about my experiences with sane normal everyday people(namely people who aren’t flaming liberals but who also do not adhere to our way of thinking in it’s entirety):

    When it comes to sane women of the moderately neoconish conservative or apolitical conservative(most women I know) persuasions when they say “sexism” they actually mean misogyny. These women acknowledge the differences between men and women(which is what feminists describe as “sexism”) so they do not believe that believing in or acknowledging the differences between men and women is “sexism” just misogyny where you see women as intrinsically inferior to men, devalue femininity, see women as sex objects, or treat them as chattel.

    Racist is much more complicated and I consider it a weasel word, a word that means everything and therefore nothing. “Racist” could mean racial supremacist, imperialists, racial exterminists, anti-multicultis, anti-immigration(both mass immigration of legal and illegal types), segregationists, assimilationists, nativists, someone who just happens to be white, or someone who happens to be of a race that is rather aloof but not white(Japanese, Jews), someone who says something that other races(particularly a white who says something non-whites or jews don’t like or a non-black who says something blacks don’t like) don’t like, someone whom other races don’t like and someone who merely doesn’t like, trust, or is ambivalent towards certain races other than his own.

    Basically racism doesn’t mean anything. And according to the multiple definitions, we’re all racists or some sort or another. The Church has always been completely against extermininationism and supremacism but it has tolerated imperialism, segregation, and nativism to certain extents even if it didn’t agree with these stances.

    But now, the racism canard has been used by all Churches from Protestant, to Catholic, to even Orthodox to justify irresponsible mass immigration and multiculturalism(including the tolerance of the intolerable) and from all of this, chaos and confusion.

  • Svar says:

    “The reason liberalism is regnant is because liberals know how to do propaganda and we don’t.”

    I hear other conservatives say this all the time and I am starting to believe that this is not the case. This is how it is supposed to be, this is how Rome, Greece, Egypt, Vedic India, Israel, Byzantium, pre-Islamic Persia and various other civilizations fell and this seems like the way the life cycles of civilizations work: birth, growth, peak, decline, death. I do not think the liberals are a cause, I think they are a symptom of a deeper problem, decadence. I’m thinking that Evola, Spengler, and Nietszche are right on this matter.

  • Zippy says:

    Suggesting that liberalism is good at propaganda is like suggesting that Islam is good at propaganda.

    It isn’t propaganda: it is true belief.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Zippy

    Sometimes an accusation that you’re a little trigger-happy with claiming others are nominalists is just an accusation that you’re a little trigger-happy with claiming others are nominalists. You’ll claim Game is evil because of its exosemantic associations, but that otherwise there is nothing intrinsically unjust with acting towards others on the basis of your understanding of human psychology. Just that when you do it and call it the wrong word, it’s evil. Something like that.

    @Caldo

    I’m not making any case with respect to what constitutes racism. I would, if Progressive detractors could agree to and use the definition sensibly, agree with the definition of racism as “the unjust discrimination on the basis of race,” which being the good Thomists we are implies there is such a thing as the “just discrimination on the basis of race.” Problem is that since ‘racist’ has proven such a handy way of controlling conservatives to make sure they don’t talk about race in any way disadvantageous to the Progressive vision it’s use has become, as Zippy points out above, less in order to facilitate communication but to be a club to beat over the heads of the insufficiently Progressive.

    Even Zippy partakes of the same sort of word-as-club. Just see his use of ‘nominalist.’ Don’t agree with Zippy’s use of words? It’s not an honest disagreement over semantic, you’re just a dirty nominalist, which settles it decisively in favor of Zippy because he’s a holier-than-thou essentialist.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce:

    You’ll claim Game is evil because of its exosemantic associations, …

    No, I claim that Game is evil because it is slutty behaviors for men.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    And racial discrimination is wrong because it’s oppression of the poor and downtrodden.

    *yawn*

  • Svar says:

    I was reading around at Orthodox sites and I came across a term called “phyletism”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

    On 10 August 1872 the Synod issued an official condemnation of ecclesiastical racism, or “ethno-phyletism,” as well as its theological argumentation
    We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”
    In condemning “phyletism,” the Synod in Constantinople had, in fact, defined a basic problem of modern Orthodoxy.[3]

    I came across it in regards to the issue of Matthew Heimbach and several other white nationalists who converted to Orthodoxy just to use it to advance a racial agenda.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce:
    I don’t disagree with liberals over the existence of racial discrimination, or claim that racial discrimination is an ‘anti-concept’ or never happens, or play word games to try to win an argument by chanting “exosemantic” while sprinkling rubber chickens with fairy dust, or pretend that racial discrimination is never morally wrong or is something other than discriminating based on race.

  • Svar says:

    @ Bryce Laliberte

    The second biggest problem with Game besides the fact that it is evil for promoting promiscuity in men is that it is based in bullshit psychology. You don’t need Game to find a nice girl and go out with her, you just need balls.

  • […] thinks that most of the time people accuse someone of being “racist” the accused rather than the accuser is in the right. I’ll see that “most of the […]

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Zippy

    I’m curious, do you think there’s a single thing I’ve ever said (or you could imagine me saying) you could even admit to agreeing with? It’s almost a wonder you believe in God, given I support the same view.

    @Svar

    I don’t think anyone who promotes Game would claim in any essential sense that you *need* Game to get girls.

    But it is well-corroborated, not only in my experience but everyone I’ve spoken with who’s ever put it into action before. Your claim that it’s based on bullshit psychology would seem unlikely given that, unless it is a theory that manages to be false yet just so happens to yield a greater-than-chance level of predictive success, i.e. is a well-corroborated theory. But I’m probably wrong to bring up philosophy of science in these parts.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce:

    I’m curious, do you think there’s a single thing I’ve ever said (or you could imagine me saying) you could even admit to agreeing with?

    The fact that having a discussion is even possible implies that we already agree on most things.

  • Zippy says:

    I have no doubt that the advice dispensed in Cosmopolitan Magazine works for women, for values of “works” and “women”.

  • Svar says:

    Bryce, I’ve done the Game thing. I found that quantity wise it doesn’t make a real difference, but quality wise does. Before Game, it was normal decent girls and after Game it was sorority-types and campus sluts. And since I’m Christian, quantity doesn’t matter because I only need one anyway, but quality does matter.

    Game seems to me an egalitarian ideology where physical attractiveness is downplayed in favor of “negs” and other stupid little tactics.

    The only reason why Game ever works is because of the “placebo effect”. You think it makes you more attractive to women, you become more confident due to that belief and more confidence makes you more attractive to women. So if you’re already physically attractive, Game will give you a pretense of confidence as well as a fake charisma. I guess it works if you want to get laid for a night, but for our purposes it’s better to actually have confidence and charisma.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Bryce

    Even Zippy partakes of the same sort of word-as-club. Just see his use of ‘nominalist.’ Don’t agree with Zippy’s use of words? It’s not an honest disagreement over semantic, you’re just a dirty nominalist, which settles it decisively in favor of Zippy because he’s a holier-than-thou essentialist.

    As a fellow dirty nominalist: Don’t sweat it. I’m ok with believing Zippy believes in his version of essentialism; in which he believes all non-essentialism of the Zippy variety is mere nominalism. I think he’s wrong about some things, and I think he accepts that he might be (must be, even) wrong about some things, but he argues strongly so that we can all find out. He also hosts remarkably good and rare conversations. I’ve seen things that I’m tired of looking at made fresh by his new perspective. That’s awesome and laudable!

    Essentially (ha!), you’re upset that Zippy isn’t the way you would like him to be. Well who cares? You shouldn’t even care.

  • or pretend that racial discrimination is never morally wrong or is something other than discriminating based on race.

    Really. Who is saying that? Honest question. The most your interlocuters suggest (even Jim) is that when racial discrimination is wrong, the wrongness of it has nothing to do with it being “racial” or “discrimination”.

  • Zippy says:

    Nick B. Steves:
    You fellas pretending with postmodern intransigence that Game is something other than itself is one of the things I had in mind with “pretending that racial discrimination is something other than discrimination based on race”. You fellas embracing the anti-concept concept of “racism” is what I had in mind with the other.

    Really, y’all need to find your inner Derrida and strangle him. You’ll live a happier life for it, truly.

    The most your interlocuters suggest (even Jim) is that when racial discrimination is wrong, the wrongness of it has nothing to do with it being “racial” or “discrimination”.

    Then they are wrong there too, probably symptomatic of getting their thoughts all jammed up in Derrida’s sewer line.

    Hanging a man because he is a murderer as opposed to not a murderer (note the discrimination) is not (necessarily) morally wrong.

    Hanging a man because of his race (note the discrimination and the race) is morally wrong, for reasons that have everything to do with it being racial and discrimination.

    Sometimes it is in fact unjust to discriminate based on race, for reasons that have everything to do with the fact that the particular discrimination is based on race. Sometimes it isn’t.

    You guys seem to think that Trotsky gets to decide what racism is because he (lets stipulate) coined the term. That’s (among other things) what makes you nominalists. Meaning doesn’t work that way.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Svar

    I suppose I should’ve clarified. When I spoke of Game being well-corroborated, I didn’t mean necessarily by my own experience in the field; indeed, I would agree that the main tactics of Game most people are familiar with are suited towards scoring with less stable chicks, rather than getting a more marriage-oriented girl.

    I do wonder how much the negative connotation to Game in certain other spheres contributes to that being the case. If a nice Catholic girl hears continuously about how evil Game is, then anytime she sees a guy manage a certain level of attraction in those kinds of girls, she assumes that’s his interest and gives him little of her potential romantic attention in the first place. A selection effect, as it were, which defuses a degree of that criticism. That one can make themselves into a certain person suitable to and attractive towards others, however, remains a premise you’re fundamentally agreeing with, which is the essential premise of Game that NBS and I have been pointing to.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce:

    That one can make themselves into a certain person suitable to and attractive towards others, however, remains a premise you’re fundamentally agreeing with, which is the essential premise of Game that NBS and I have been pointing to.

    “That water is wet, however, remains a premise you’re fundamentally agreeing with, which is the essential premise … “

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Caldo

    It certainly seems as though Zippy could be a bit more charitable and less evasive. I haven’t noticed a single signaled agreement with an opponent of his yet, even about very elementary things that supposedly we Thomists can agree about. Instead, he just skirts around the point you’re trying to impress, no matter how simple and elementary the agreement or disagreement you’re seeking to find him committed to.

    He has remained awfully quiet about conceding the point that acting in a way that acknowledges well-corroborated psychological theories of people can be just, but he won’t speak out against it any more, which seems the nearest to him acknowledging agreement as you’ll get.

  • Svar says:

    “I do wonder how much the negative connotation to Game in certain other spheres contributes to that being the case. If a nice Catholic girl hears continuously about how evil Game is, then anytime she sees a guy manage a certain level of attraction in those kinds of girls, she assumes that’s his interest and gives him little of her potential romantic attention in the first place”

    I don’t think it’s the negative connotation as decent Catholic girls will always turn away from the guy who’s ignoring her in favor of the sluts regardless of what you call it.

    “That one can make themselves into a certain person suitable to and attractive towards others, however, remains a premise you’re fundamentally agreeing with, which is the essential premise of Game that NBS and I have been pointing to.”

    I believe that Game is the pretense of real change for the better and a shoddy pretense at that. That is my main objection. Becoming a better man not just to attract girls but for God and for yourself.

  • Svar says:

    “Becoming a better man not just to attract girls but for God and for yourself.”

    Edit: You should become a better man not just to attract girls but for God and for yourself.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:
    You may notice a similar thing happening here to what we were just discussing about evolution.

    To the extent Game is something specific enough to be subject to analysis and criticism, it is basically the male version of slutty behavior. So its proponents will constantly reframe it as motherhood, apple pie, “becoming a better man”, and every other unobjectionable and obvious slogan that folks who don’t read Roissy already know.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce:
    I certainly agree with trite and obvious things like the notion that men can do things to improve themselves and make themselves more attractive. The point to getting me to agree to those trite and obvious things seems to be to declare by nominalist fiat that what I just agreed to is Game, even though it isn’t.

    You can take the fact that I don’t take the bait as lack of charity or evasiveness if you must. But it is really just the fish evading the rhetorical fishhook, the dope evading the rope.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Bryce

    Behold.

    Zippy and I have had several disagreements and several agreements. Once, for some weeks, I was in moderation because he didn’t like my tone. He said I was preachy. Well he was right, and yet there was more than one lesson there, and not all of them are essentialist.

    At the end of the day–post, comments, whathaveyou–Zippy has been a boon to me. If he was not, then I would leave him in peace; as we are commanded. As it is, I try to stay with him in peace; as we are also commanded. You need to figure out what you’re doing here, why, and if that is the best way to spend your time.

  • The Deuce says:

    There are genuine homophobes. Most of them are relatively small and weak guys in high security prison for felonies.

  • Marissa says:

    misogyny where you see women as intrinsically inferior to men

    Subordinates are inferior, in certain respects, to their supervisors. I think the problem is a lot of people think inferior means “lowly” or “unworthy” when it simply means a position of relatively lower status–fewer responsibilities, qualifications, etc. A sergeant is inferior to a colonel, but it’s not a hateful thing to be a sergeant. What’s strange is a modern woman does not mind being inferior to her boss, but to her husband or father, such a thought cannot be borne.

    I do agree with you that there is something that exists called misogyny, but I wouldn’t define it using the snippet you used (and I know you were describing what some women you know think, so it’s not necessarily your belief). Misogyny is more like a hatred of what makes woman woman, and one of the things that makes woman woman is her relative position to men. I would label the feminist chauvinism, which despises woman’s “place” or “sphere” and pushes woman into aping the strengths and weaknesses of men, as misogyny.

    I’m unaware of how this can be applied to race because I don’t think there’s been any revelation from God on the subject. At least I’m not aware of any.

  • What’s strange is a modern woman does not mind being inferior to her boss, but to her husband or father, such a thought cannot be borne.
    How is that strange? I don’t want to be inferior to my wife (in theory), but I’m fine being inferior to my boss. People have that sort of attitude all the time, and many times rightly so.

    That’s not to say I DON’T think women should be inferior to their husband, just that there are definitely certain people I’m okay being inferior to and certain people I’m not.

  • Svar says:

    @ Zippy

    “You may notice a similar thing happening here to what we were just discussing about evolution”

    Yes, I do. The reframing, turning the debate in different directions once confronted directly. I see it.

    @ Marissa

    “Subordinates are inferior, in certain respects, to their supervisors. I think the problem is a lot of people think inferior means “lowly” or “unworthy” when it simply means a position of relatively lower status–fewer responsibilities, qualifications, etc. A sergeant is inferior to a colonel, but it’s not a hateful thing to be a sergeant. What’s strange is a modern woman does not mind being inferior to her boss, but to her husband or father, such a thought cannot be borne.”

    No of course not. I do not mean inferior in sense of authority. A husband is superior to the wife in terms of authority but not in his intrinsic human worth. A woman’s intrinsic human value is equal to that of a man.

    “I do agree with you that there is something that exists called misogyny, but I wouldn’t define it using the snippet you used (and I know you were describing what some women you know think, so it’s not necessarily your belief). Misogyny is more like a hatred of what makes woman woman, and one of the things that makes woman woman is her relative position to men. I would label the feminist chauvinism, which despises woman’s “place” or “sphere” and pushes woman into aping the strengths and weaknesses of men, as misogyny.”

    I was discussing the beliefs of women I know, but it is what I think and you’re basically saying the same thing that I did but with different words.

    You said: “Misogyny is more like a hatred of what makes woman woman, and one of the things that makes woman woman is her relative position to men.”

    And I said: “just misogyny where you see women as intrinsically inferior to men, devalue femininity, see women as sex objects, or treat them as chattel.”

    What you speak of is the devaluation of femininity, what makes a woman a woman and I agree that is what feminists do. They devalue what women are and try to mold them into the image of what they think men are.

    But having the belief that women are JUST for babies, sex, or housework is also devaluing what they are. Those are the roles of women, but a woman is not merely a utilitarian object.

  • Svar says:

    “I’m unaware of how this can be applied to race because I don’t think there’s been any revelation from God on the subject. At least I’m not aware of any.”

    I am aware of the Jew and Greek thing also the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church and the 1872 Orthodox condemnation of the relatively new ideology of nationalism it was clashing with:

    :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

    On 10 August 1872 the Synod issued an official condemnation of ecclesiastical racism, or “ethno-phyletism,” as well as its theological argumentation
    We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”
    In condemning “phyletism,” the Synod in Constantinople had, in fact, defined a basic problem of modern Orthodoxy.[3]

  • Marissa says:

    I agree with everything you said, Svar. I hope I didn’t sound like I hold the “belief that women are JUST for babies, sex, or housework”, which I do not. That sounds Islamic, not Christian. For instance, “women religious” do none of those things (well, perhaps they do housework depending on where they live). On a side note, though, it will likely not be anytime soon that women are too involved in raising up virtuous children, keeping their husbands satisfied, and making healthy meals/keeping their homes. It sounds more like a feminist scare story than history.

    Also, thank you for sharing the teaching of the Church — my assumption was that nothing had been revealed allowing this type of subordinate/leader organization for the races. It’s good to see that confirmed.

    Malcolm: How is that strange? I don’t want to be inferior to my wife (in theory), but I’m fine being inferior to my boss. People have that sort of attitude all the time, and many times rightly so.

    It’s strange for a wife to despise her subordinate position to her husband and yet desire a total stranger to lead her in his stead. Men have their hierarchies in which they accept being inferior/superior to other men; I see nothing strange about that.

  • Svar says:

    @ Marissa

    “I agree with everything you said, Svar. I hope I didn’t sound like I hold the “belief that women are JUST for babies, sex, or housework”, which I do not.”

    No, of course not, I never thought you believed that. The problem with the modern English language is the existence of synonyms. Words may be similar but they are never the same, they each have a nuanced meaning but in modern English we believe things like “guilt” and “remorse” are the same and that destroys the meaning of both words. That’s why in a lot debates, even(or maybe especially haha) on here a lot of people tend to say the exact same thing but in different words and they start to argue past each other and lose their cool for no real reason.

    “For instance, “women religious” do none of those things (well, perhaps they do housework depending on where they live).”

    I’ll tell you something I think about women. Women are help-meets. A man does not have to submit to his wife, but only a foolish man would completely disregard her counsel. Even women religious are helpmeets but not in the context of family but in the context of Church and community.

    “On a side note, though, it will likely not be anytime soon that women are too involved in raising up virtuous children, keeping their husbands satisfied, and making healthy meals/keeping their homes. It sounds more like a feminist scare story than history.”

    I don’t know, Marissa. I tend to see a lot of decent girls around who want marriage and children, who can cook, and who don’t sleep around. To be honest, the manosphere has opposite scare stories of Church girls being total sluts and where I am from even the less religious or secular girls are not sluts. Sorority girls, yes, but decent girls? No.

  • Svar says:

    “Also, thank you for sharing the teaching of the Church — my assumption was that nothing had been revealed allowing this type of subordinate/leader organization for the races. It’s good to see that confirmed.”

    Could you explain what you mean here?

  • sunshinemary says:

    Off topic:

    Svar, it’s really good to see you. How have you been?

  • Svar says:

    It’s good to see you around as well Sunshine. I’ve actually been the best I’ve been in the last two or three years.

  • It’s strange for a wife to despise her subordinate position to her husband and yet desire a total stranger to lead her in his stead.

    Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

  • Actually, it reminds me of an awesome scene from “Firefly”. The ship’s pilot, Wash, is married to the first mate, Zoe. He has this argument with the Captain, Mal. He’s jealous of him because Zoe follows Mal’s orders.

    Wash: She promised to love, honor and obey me!

    Mal: Wait, Zoe promised to obey you?

    Wash: …Well, no, but that’s the point! There’s obeying going on right under my nose!

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Malcolm

    Great show, and great scene. Poor resolution, though.

    Another small point of order:

    He’s jealous of him

    No, he’s jealous of Zoe. One is jealous towards what is owned. You could say Wash is envious of Mal, but (from our perspective) that’s not quite right either because Wash has a legitimate authority over Zoe that supersedes Mal’s.

  • No, he’s jealous of Zoe. One is jealous towards what is owned. You could say Wash is envious of Mal, but (from our perspective) that’s not quite right either because Wash has a legitimate authority over Zoe that supersedes Mal’s.

    No argument there, thanks for the clarification.

    “War Stories” is one of my favorite episodes. When you say “poor resolution” do you mean the show or the scene? Because I loved “Serenity”, and as for the scene itself I had no particular objection to how it was resolved (I hardly had hope that ultra-feminist Whedon would dare to admit that hey, maybe Wash had a point, but I at least don’t think he ended up being outright disrespectful towards Wash, and that’s something).

  • nickbsteves says:

    Hanging a man because he is a murderer as opposed to not a murderer (note the discrimination) is not (necessarily) morally wrong.

    Hanging a man because of his race (note the discrimination and the race) is morally wrong, for reasons that have everything to do with it being racial and discrimination.

    Hanging a man because of his race is morally wrong in the exact same way that hanging a man for any other reason (or no reason at all) is morally wrong: it is unjust. If it were just to hang him, i.e., you had the authority to hang people for just cause, then you wouldn’t be hanging him because of his race, but for the just cause. The sin, therefore, is murder; not hanging him “because of his race”. We do not need a new word to describe hanging people “because of their race”. “Murder” will do.

  • Zippy says:

    Nick B Steves:

    We do not need a new word to describe hanging people “because of their race”. “Murder” will do.

    Help me understand this.

    You’ve made the claim that racism – unjust actions with racial motives – doesn’t even exist. This is a ludicrous claim on its face, a reductio ad absurdam of the positions of folks who are saying it. But this is the Internet, so let’s talk about it anyway.

    In your intellectually truncated world the reasons why somebody does something don’t even exist? You are not only against all discrimination (at least in murder cases) based on motives, but believe that the very idea of different motives is an anti-concept: different motives don’t even exist as concepts that it is possible to think about?

  • nickbsteves says:

    “You’ve made the claim that racism – unjust actions with racial motives – doesn’t even exist.”

    Huh? Where did I claim that? (There ya go puttin arguments in people’s mouths again?) I’m merely claiming that “racism” is a bad name for “unjust actions with racial motives” (which undeniably exist) because the term “racism” when coined did not mean that (see for minor update to that history), was not used that way when it began to take off in the 1930s, and is certainly not used that way most of the time today. I see nothing good that can come from adopting the language of cultural marxism to describe disorders that Christianity with cooperation of the English language already have a perfectly comprehensive and coherent vocabulary for.

  • nickbsteves says:

    If you want a sub-species of unjust killing based on racial prejudice, then “racially motivated murder” would do. “Racism” is almost universally appreciated today as the motive alone. (Sometime a conscious motive isn’t even necessary: “Institutional Racism”.) Most people, and certainly regnant progressives, don’t think of racism as actions at all, but the motives and feelings of racial preference which almost everyone everywhere feels, usually mildly. Cultural marxists specifically wanted to pathologize this normalcy for revolutionary aims. (BTW, they succeeded.)

    Sexist, misogynist, homophobe, heteronormativist, transphobe, etc. are all examples of this same thing: a seizure of language to advance disordered norms and tear down traditional understandings of power, identity, and natural human relationships.

    You can call a disorder anything you want, but why call it name with which you’ll always need to use footnotes?

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:

    Huh? Where did I claim that?

    Here. But if I wasn’t supposed to take your claims seriously, that’s my bad. I won’t make that mistake again.

    I’m merely claiming that “racism” is a bad name for “unjust actions with racial motives”

    If your entire point reduces to objecting to calling racism “racism”, you’ve already conceded everything to modernity before you’ve even started. (I’ve mentioned this before about ridiculous attempts to reframe substantive disagreements as word games).

    Contrary to what you stated explicitly, racism is actually (and manifestly) “a thing”, that is, something real.

    But you can’t even object when things that aren’t racist are called racist, because, to quote your exact words, “racism is not a thing”. (By which you don’t seem to actually seriously mean “racism is not a thing”, but that you don’t like it that racism is called “racism”).

  • nickbsteves says:

    Yes. “racism” qua “poopy-head” qua the way it is normally used by native English speakers is not a thing. “Racism” qua “unjust discrimination based upon race” is (of course) real thing. That’s just a really bad name for it for reasons I’ve outlined in many places. And of course it is I who have conceded “everything to modernity” (whatever that means) but you’re the one using cultural marxist language. Sure.

    I remember being scolded for borrowing ostensibly PUA language to refer to morally neutral principles. Arguable, I suppose, but PUAs didn’t invent a word for the sole purpose of undermining traditional culture. They used a word that has ~20 meanings in English. And now that the shoe pretty much is on the other foot, you are all goodness and light, edifying your brothers, guarding against modernity and nominalism, and your shit all smells sweet. And I’m the one swallowing modernity hook, line, and sinker. Right.

    It’s all word games with you Zippy. All the way down. BTW, you never answered my question: Have you ever been wrong on the Internet?

    I’ve said my peace and you managed to make it say exactly what you wanted to argue against, which is not (remotely) what I said. So really, other than you being an asshole to me, we don’t really have a substantial disagreement. You are beyond edification.

    I used to think you were smart. You probably still are. But more and more you’re just sounding old.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:

    And now that the shoe pretty much is on the other foot, …

    There is nothing inconsistent in me refusing to play along with postmodern word games generally, whether it is the assertion that Game is something it isn’t or the assertion that racism isn’t anything at all.

  • Have you ever been wrong on the Internet?

    You stop beating your wife yet, nick?

  • Svar says:

    “But more and more you’re just sounding old.”

    Zippy, he has a point. Have you considered age-reduction surgery?

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Have you considered age-reduction surgery?

    I am working on it in my island volcano lair, along with the teleporter, the antigravity car, the time machine, a superluminal drive, and this little device that goes “ding” when there’s stuff.

    Worst case I suppose I can get an attitude transplant.

  • Svar says:

    I actually have already developed the procedure. I will first get some anesthetic(and something for you as well), then I’ll make a small incision and pull out most of your dignity and experience, and then inject your face with large amounts of botox in order to take away any traces of dignity you might have left and just like that, you’ll be ready to show the world your younger self.

    I’ve done work on both Tom Cruise and John Travolta. You could say I’m pretty famous.

    P.S. Side-effects include Scientology.

  • […] to recent discussions of racism (see here and here), I’ll leave you with an example of how a political reactionary can be against […]

  • Xopher Halftongue says:

    R Boosterman’s response to Aquinas Dad:

    Aquinas Dad said:
    “You are a nobleman; a duke, say. You are walking through a town (your town) when a peasant hurls an isult at you, calls you a ‘nancy fop’ or similar. How would you respond?”

    As a noble samurai, I would immediately cut off the peasant’s head with my noble katana. Which is what real noble samurai did in the past.

    […]

    [This has what exactly to do with this thread? – Z]

  • […] in a lot of racially motivated injustice: racism. By the same token, racism is probably one of the most abused concepts out there.  That’s what liberals do: they start with a basically legitimate injustice […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Babel rising at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: