LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[The Yeomanry]

Jordan Peterson is a psychiatrist who is famous for talking about politics.

His fame [and I'm not saying he's bad or good] is symptomatic of the problem with democrazy.

[The Yeomanry]

Not really, no

A lot of classical liberal thinkers supported slavery, or were extremely abstract about their opposition to it. That would hardly be considered socially liberal today.

Yes, because liberalism is really about posturing, i.e. status signaling. It's not difficult to see why they radically swing between positions every generation.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Originally The Culture War (Kulturkampf) ended in the 1970s...

Blimey, Bismarck kept that going a long time.

[Ostroeuropa]

He makes it harder to takes him seriously as the days go by.

Even his followers, bless them, sometimes struggle to defend his ideas.

What does it say to you that he's the one the media lifted up as representative of anti-feminist criticism rather than an MRA?

[The Yeomanry]

JBP is high status — incels are low status. That's why the media chose JBP to represent anti-feminism and not admins of a subreddit.

[Ostroeuropa]

JBP is high status — incels are low status. That's why the media chose JBP to represent anti-feminism and not admins of a subreddit.

Incels aren't the only other type of anti-feminist, but you've got the ghost of a point there. I think it's more that the media is full of dogmatists who can't handle things that are outside context problems for their feminist dogmas. Peterson is safe for them because they can comprehend him, but MRAs and such reveal the inadequacy of their worldview and its failures to accurate describe reality, so they just have to resort to vilifying them and insisting they are the same as Incels, peterson, etc.

According to the media, MRAs are:

MGTOW
Incel
Red Pill
Peterson
Traditionalists
AND
Merely misinformed about feminism and should become feminists and stop fighting them because "We believe the same things."

The incoherent response to the MRM is due to the worldview of the journalists being incoherent when lined up against reality. They can't bolster MRAs like they have peterson because then they'd routinely look like prejudiced idiots, that Peterson and his traditionalism shtick manages to make them come close to looking that way in any case is demonstrative of how kakistocratic a feminist system is, promoting merely those who believe the hardest and vilify opposition the loudest rather than those who are capable of thinking properly, over time, they've degenerated so badly they can't even beat traditionalists anymore in an argument. But the public is sick of them, and some form of opposition/criticism needs to be found, so they went with a traditionalist because they can comprehend him.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... extVillain

Feminisms worldview can't deal with MRAs because their worldview is flawed and not descriptive of reality. The schizophrenic framing of what MRAs are by feminist journalists is a reflection of their inability to comprehend reality due to using the feminist lens. The MRM is an outside context problem for their framework, as is mens issues in general.

[The Yeomanry]

It's not the ghost of a point, it is the point. A high-status person will always be held up as an example of leadership and low-status people are always either ignored or mocked. JBP is articulate, confident, qualified [and a lot of people seem to say he is handsome — I can't comment] whereas most anti-feminists just aren't. It's not rocket science man.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not the ghost of a point, it is the point. A high-status person will always be held up as an example of leadership and low-status people are always either ignored or mocked. JBP is articulate, confident, qualified [and a lot of people seem to say he is handsome — I can't comment] whereas most anti-feminists just aren't. It's not rocket science man.

There's plenty of MRAs with qualifications to discuss the topic, some even more than peterson since he's a professor of a different field and some MRAs run shelters and such. There's professors too, and book writers, and so on.

[The Yeomanry]

No, you didn't understand me.

Clinical psychiatrist and professor of psychology is a high status job that qualifies people in the minds of others to speak about whatever they want. Running a man's shelter [?] might be relevant, but it's not high-status, so nobody cares.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, you didn't understand me.

Clinical psychiatrist and professor of psychology is a high status job that qualifies people in the minds of others to speak about whatever they want. Running a man's shelter [?] might be relevant, but it's not high-status, so nobody cares.

if this is the case, how did various despised minorities get their movements recognized?

I accept it's partially the case, just not insurmountable.

[The Yeomanry]

Some other faction in the ruling class used them. Weak groups gain strength in two ways: either by coup d'etat or by being offered rewards for supporting some member of the ruling class who wants to use them to gain power in some way.

I'm not saying this might not happen to "men", by the way, I'm just offering an observation as to why Peterson is popular and the meninist movement isn't.

[The Yeomanry]

Anyway, meninism is just as much as a kakistocracy as feminism is. Neither are clear or real ideologies, but instead mechanisms to capture status in low-status groups. Feminism uses its signal power to gain status for women and transsexuals [and possibly some minority coloured people] and meninism uses its signal power to gain status for male detritus [not a pejorative]. In the sense both systems want to catapult their relative group to the top by social capture, they are both kakistocratic.

[Ostroeuropa]

Some other faction in the ruling class used them. Weak groups gain strength in two ways: either by coup d'etat or by being offered rewards for supporting some member of the ruling class who wants to use them to gain power in some way.

I'm not saying this might not happen to "men", by the way, I'm just offering an observation as to why Peterson is popular and the meninist movement isn't.

This includes coalition breaking I assume, such as if the MRM started shilling for hardline anti-elite policies and socialism, the establishment might panic and fix mens issues.

[Ostroeuropa]

Anyway, meninism is just as much as a kakistocracy as feminism is. Neither are clear or real ideologies, but instead mechanisms to capture status in low-status groups. Feminism uses its signal power to gain status for women and transsexuals [and possibly some minority coloured people] and meninism uses its signal power to gain status for male detritus [not a pejorative]. In the sense both systems want to catapult their relative group to the top by social capture, they are both kakistocratic.

Disagree. The acknowledgement of things like male rape victims, dv victims etc, is not about getting them status, but about getting them help. The MRM is focused on uplifting the bottom of society to the middle, not in capturing the top. That's feminism and its absurd and incoherent view on what "oppression" is that focuses on the fact some 200 women somewhere got screwed out of a ceo job and will have ot put up with the horrors of being upper-middle class high level managers instead, and insists this is a greater oppression than a few million men dying, being homeless, drafted, etc.

[The Yeomanry]

No.

If some grand coalition of incels, mgtows and redpillers tried to take the state over they'd just be gulaged and used as an excuse to further suppress the rest of the men. The state is not scared of its lowest status citizens. It is scared of its high status citizens using the hoi polloi to overthrow it. That's why there's huge reaction to JBP personally and almost no reaction to the MRM in general.

[Ostroeuropa]

No.

If some grand coalition of incels, mgtows and redpillers tried to take the state over they'd just be gulaged and used as an excuse to further suppress the rest of the men. The state is not scared of its lowest status citizens. It is scared of its high status citizens using the hoi polloi to overthrow it. That's why there's huge reaction to JBP personally and almost no reaction to the MRM in general.

Disagree, I don't see this as how states function, nor have they historically.
Example, the black civil rights movement.

Black radicalism and socialism pushed the moderates into supporting the end of segregation to stop all the communists and socialists radicalizing the black populace.

[The Yeomanry]

Anyway, meninism is just as much as a kakistocracy as feminism is. Neither are clear or real ideologies, but instead mechanisms to capture status in low-status groups. Feminism uses its signal power to gain status for women and transsexuals [and possibly some minority coloured people] and meninism uses its signal power to gain status for male detritus [not a pejorative]. In the sense both systems want to catapult their relative group to the top by social capture, they are both kakistocratic.

Disagree. The acknowledgement of things like male rape victims, dv victims etc, is not about getting them status, but about getting them help. The MRM is focused on uplifting the bottom of society to the middle, not in capturing the top. That's feminism and its absurd and incoherent view on what "oppression" is that focuses on the fact some 200 women somewhere got screwed out of a ceo job and will have ot put up with the horrors of being upper-middle class high level managers instead, and insists this is a greater oppression than a few million men dying, being homeless, drafted, etc.

No, not really.

Nobody cares about specific issues like how many women got called a slut last year or what percent of domestic abuses are committed by women against men. These are mere details. They don't form part of the most important thing, which is the agenda of whoever rules the state.

When meninists get what they want, the actual outcome is that the feminist agenda is weakened, and even if it isn't, everyone perceives that it is, which is just as important. And when one movement gains impetus over another it must by nature gain power over the state, i.e. its people must gain status.

I'm not interested in some diatribe about how women are so oppressed or how men are or whatever. Nobody is. What is important is whether these groups have captured, or are close to capturing, the state and whether they'll run the state better. Feminists are close to capturing the state and will run it much worse, which is why they're dangerous, and in becoming majorly important politically, acquired status [or had to acquire status to become important]. MRMs have no status but if they became powerful enough for anyone to listen to their wack ideas, they would have gained stsatus.

[The Yeomanry]

No.

If some grand coalition of incels, mgtows and redpillers tried to take the state over they'd just be gulaged and used as an excuse to further suppress the rest of the men. The state is not scared of its lowest status citizens. It is scared of its high status citizens using the hoi polloi to overthrow it. That's why there's huge reaction to JBP personally and almost no reaction to the MRM in general.

Disagree, I don't see this as how states function, nor have they historically.
Example, the black civil rights movement.

Black radicalism and socialism pushed the moderates into supporting the end of segregation to stop all the communists and socialists radicalizing the black populace.

Blacks are a good example. As blacks became a cause celebre of one team of American ruling class [blue], they used and mobilised them as a political weapon to beat on the other team [red] in order to take power from them. Blacks aren't relatively better off in the US now or 50 or 100 or 200 years ago, and the blue team has an incentive for that: it provides them with huge manpower.

You don't view the world this way because you still view existing politics as having fundamental ethical and political disagreements which can be solved by consensus. The reality is we live in a totalitarian society with a state ideology. Whoever captures the state ideology wins. The feminists have nearly got it, so you and your side better get a move on if you don't want to be wiped out in a decade or so.

[The Yeomanry]

Just look at nationstates for example. If this site had proper rules, most of its morons would have been banned. However, it doesn't, and not-morons do not want to spend lots of time around morons, who are protected by the site rules. The result: increasing numbers of morons.

Morons easily submit to signaling, which NS moderators are good at. The administration continues to grow its base at the cost of the quality of the site. They are incentivised to make rules suppressing intelligent posters and supporting morons because the number of pliable morons will grow and grow, swelling the size of their fief.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Jordan Peterson is a psychiatrist who is famous for talking about politics.

His fame [and I'm not saying he's bad or good] is symptomatic of the problem with democrazy.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Just look at nationstates for example. If this site had proper rules, most of its morons would have been banned. However, it doesn't, and not-morons do not want to spend lots of time around morons, who are protected by the site rules. The result: increasing numbers of morons.

Morons easily submit to signaling, which NS moderators are good at. The administration continues to grow its base at the cost of the quality of the site. They are incentivised to make rules suppressing intelligent posters and supporting morons because the number of pliable morons will grow and grow, swelling the size of their fief.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Don't give the admins any ideas. They're totalitarian enough as it is.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A lot of classical liberal thinkers supported slavery, or were extremely abstract about their opposition to it. That would hardly be considered socially liberal today.

Yes, because liberalism is really about posturing, i.e. status signaling. It's not difficult to see why they radically swing between positions every generation.

Individual freedom and equality is more than just virtue signalling.

[The Yeomanry]

If that was true liberals would be able to settle on broad ideas of what rights are. Except they can't decide, and never have been able to, and never will, because "liberal rights" are status signals about making people feel good, and not genuine doctrine on how to efficiently run a state.

[Painisia]

Excuse me, but is gender neutrality a postmodern thing? And what the heck is "Cultural marxism"?

[Firaxin]

If that was true liberals would be able to settle on broad ideas of what rights are. Except they can't decide, and never have been able to, and never will, because "liberal rights" are status signals about making people feel good, and not genuine doctrine on how to efficiently run a state.

A right is an ability afforded to all citizens and are unable to be taken away unless the courts have sufficiently ruled that they no longer deserve those rights.