Shh, not talking to you please don't waste your time.

Shh, not talking to you please don't waste your time. — StreetlightX

I see I hit the nail precisely on its head.

Minor first world neuroses get airtime because they are the closest thing to being acceptable to a mass audience - or rather, to those who make decisions about what mass audiences get access to. — StreetlightX

I'm not saying I'm ready to believe this yet, but this is an interesting take. I'm reminded of the role comedy clubs played in apartheid South Africa, sometimes situational comedy about the trivial consequences of apartheid was the closest activists could get to speaking out among certain crowds.

Yet...

There's been an exodus of what I call the 'old left' to places like Substack and independant publishing, and no few of them cite exactly the kind of polarisation I'm talking about as the reason for leaving. Feminist writers fed up with walking on eggshells over trans issues, anti-corporatists fed up with the recent ritual capitulation to pharmaceuticals, trade unionists fed up with the demonisation of their working class base...

The picture you're painting has the left partially gagged by the elites and speaking in euphemisms because they can't talk about what they really want to say. But in my circles (in which I include the people whose writing I've followed over the years), there's no trouble talking about poverty, militarism, debt slavery etc (at least not in the publications they write for). The problems came when they also wanted to write about women-only spaces, pharmaceutical misconduct, free speech (in the traditional sense), anti-globalism... And the problems came from others on the left.

Maybe these others saw how the wind was blowing and made the smart move to limit their battles; maybe their admonition was part of a long game, but again... There's still the nagging sense that there's an awful lot more mutual back-patting than there is progress on poverty.

Over the last 20 years for example, trans rights have gone from being barely mentioned to having their own act of parliament and the mostly sucessful exclusion of gainsayers from media and academia (not even going to comment on the rights or wrongs of this, let's just take it as a given that it's a good thing, an achievement to be proud of). In the same period the number of people in debt slavery has gone up. And not just a bit. Gone up by over 30%. Obviously as the foundation of capitalism, so they're hardly going to just let it go without a fight, but a rise? Someone's seriously taken their eye off the ball and I don't think I'm that insane for looking at what the front pages actually have been filled with (instead of the fucking enslavement of 40 million people) and seeing a link.

It's like if you have a friend who goes ballistic every time you put a cup down without a coaster, you just become immune to it; you're going to take little notice next time he explodes even if, this time, its over something really important. — Isaac

People take little notice of the important things that you mention regardless of "First-world neuroses", and if we were actually the selfless and rational species that you seem to suggest we should be then those problems wouldn't exist in the first place. We're selfish and tribalistic.

Even though Rowling and Stock have similar views regarding trans issues, and similar problems with expressing their views, you express care for Stock but none for Rowling. Maybe that's simply because you can relate more to Stock, or you personally know her.

Can't help thinking there's something a little Marcusean here (alluded to earlier) about the reality of worker's demands being all too uncouth for a certain class of left-wing pundit.

Is rescuing a tormented trans art student safer than empowering a grubby factory trade union member?

Is installing a (privileged) black female supreme court judge safer than giving black female banana growers a fair price for their product?

Is getting equal pay (by way of increase, of course!) for female entertainers less dangerous than just taxing the fuck out of them to pay for such luxuries as rice and water for those less charming in an evening dress?

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of.

you express care for Stock but none for Rowling. Maybe that's simply because you can relate more to Stock, or you personally know her. — praxis

No. She simply made useful foil in a rhetorical point.

I've no sympathy at all for those who threaten her, but I've no sympathy for her either, she's a billionaire, she'll manage. My concern in all of this is for the coveted position on the front page. If that's taken up with Rowling's 'opinion', that's shit. If it's taken up with trans activists bleating about how her opinion hurt them, that's also shit.

For a fucking year we had the death toll from covid front page every day. So I'm not buying any bullshit about 'that's the way the media is' or, 'selling papers is what counts'.

Anytime we don't have a similar running total of the children killed by poverty or forced into debt slavery front page every day it's a political decision of some over-privileged editor which they could easily have not made.

I've no sympathy at all for those who threaten her, but I've no sympathy for her either, she's a billionaire, she'll manage. — Isaac

She lost her billionaire status when she donated 16% of her net worth or $160 million. In addition to the charitable trust called Volant, she’s the founder of Lumos, an organization that works to “end the systematic institutionalization of children across Europe and help them find safer, more caring places to live.” Not too afraid of important problems, it seems.

Almost finished with Material Girls, incidentally. Well reasoned, as you might expect, and a good book for learning more about the trans controversy.

She lost her billionaire status when she donated 16% of her net worth or $160 million. In addition to the charitable trust called Volant, she’s the founder of Lumos, an organization that works to “end the systematic institutionalization of children across Europe and help them find safer, more caring places to live.” Not too afraid of important problems, it seems. — praxis

Yeah. I'm not saying she's evil, just that she's not on my priority list.

Almost finished with Material Girls, incidentally. Well reasoned, as you might expect, and a good book for learning more about the trans controversy. — praxis

Good. My wife's reading it now, so it's on my list when she's finished.

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of. — Isaac

Bertolt Brecht, presumably so concerned with the poor working class, out of "solidarity" with them wore a shirt tailored the way the shirts of workers were tailored. Except that his was made of silk.

Can't help thinking there's something a little Marcusean here (alluded to earlier) about the reality of worker's demands being all too uncouth for a certain class of left-wing pundit.

Is rescuing a tormented trans art student safer than empowering a grubby factory trade union member?

Is installing a (privileged) black female supreme court judge safer than giving black female banana growers a fair price for their product?

Is getting equal pay (by way of increase, of course!) for female entertainers less dangerous than just taxing the fuck out of them to pay for such luxuries as rice and water for those less charming in an evening dress?

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of. — Isaac

Nicely polarizing. I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning.

Nicely polarizing. — praxis

Thanks. Job done then.

I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning. — praxis

Really? That we should unionize, remove trade tariffs and "tax the fuck" out the rich. My, Breitbart has changed since I last read it.

Bertolt Brecht, presumably so concerned with the poor working class, out of "solidarity" with them wore a shirt tailored the way the shirts of workers were tailored. Except that his was made of silk. — baker

Ha. Perfect. I'm currently sporting a sympathy neckerchief for much the same reason!

Any and all forms of political activity are exercises in evil, and nothing else. Those who participate in such activities are themselves enslaved to an evil ideology that has the blood of billions on the history of its existence as a concept, irrespective of permutation. This is why political polarization exists, it will always exist in that manner.

Any and all forms of political activity are exercises in evil, and nothing else. — Garrett Travers

?

? — ssu

Something confusing about what I said?

Yeah. We do have states, nations and governments. They have to operate somehow. How they operate is that evil you talk about: politics. If you think anarchy is the answer, that is a political idea some people don't like.

I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning.
— praxis

Really? That we should unionize, remove trade tariffs and "tax the fuck" out the rich. My, Breitbart has changed since I last read it. — Isaac

Well, no, more specifically I was referring to similarities between Marcusean and Orwellian.

Yeah. We do have states, nations and governments. They have to operate somehow. How they operate is that evil you talk about: politics. If you think anarchy is the answer, that is a political idea some people don't like. — ssu

How they operate by the nature of their existence is the issue. Governments are predicated exclusively on the application of force upon the human being, and assumes the sole authority to apply such force. Meaning every law it has is involuntary, violating human freedom. Involuntary violations of human freedom, violate the entity from whence all ethical deliberations are generated from. Governments are predicated exclusively on violating ethics, and have no other claim to legitimacy of any kind.

As far as anarchy, that's exactly how you and I are operating right now. I don't require a government to interact with you. I simply have to engage with you in acceptance of the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source. I need nothing more than that principle, same as everyone else.

And the most peaceful, harmonious societies in history were anarchic, voluntary communes, originally generated by Epicurus, and upon whose principles of interaction the 1st Amendment, the founding principle of the U.S government itself, is predicated on defending. Which gave rise to the most successful government of all time. But, even such an ethical standard of government has been unable to stop the violation of just that very directive, starting from the moment of conception. We have been moving closer so, so slowly, but there's no way it will ever fully be sufficient. This being because government is fundamentally an ethics violating orginization.

As far as anarchy, that's exactly how you and I are operating right now. I don't require a government to interact with you. I simply have to engage with you in acceptance of the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source. I need nothing more than that principle, same as everyone else. — Garrett Travers

But Garret, you likely know this forum. If one of us starts flaming, makes toxic ad hominems or promotes openly nazism, that member would be off from this forum in and instant never being able to return (assuming they found out you are already banned). And likely a lot of bots and algorithms are checking automatically what we are discussing and if enough alarms go off, someone will check what is this about.

We have everywhere these Overton windows and have had them in the past and will have them in the future. So even now there are rules and regulations what to follow, just for functionality, not for control or power. And even that "the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source" is obviously a limitation to our "freedom".

But Garret, you likely know this forum. If one of us starts flaming, makes toxic ad hominems or promotes openly nazism, that member would be off from this forum in and instant never being able to return (assuming they found out you are already banned). — ssu

Yes, those were the rules we voluntarily agreed to before coming here, that's an anarchic interaction to the core. Voluntary interactivity with people is what anarchy is as a philosophy.

And likely a lot of bots and algorithms are checking automatically what we are discussing and if enough alarms go off, someone will check what is this about. — ssu

That's there prerogative, this is their Garden, man. We are here as guests as long as we wish to puruse philosophy, even heatedly. Violate their ethical standards and your ostracized. I can think of no model more conducive to a peaceful, prosperous society, and no model more anarchic.

We have everywhere these Overton windows and have had them in the past and will have them in the future. — ssu

I agree. And in my house no such bullshit exists, because what you say is not against my basic principle of non-violation of human consciousness. But, we're not at my house are we? We are voluntarily in someone else's, abiding the rules we agree to uphold to be here. That's not an overton window, those are standards that are enforced via removal of contact with you, not punishable by force; that is specifically creates the overton window. The willingness to violate human consciousness via any involuntary interaction as a result of not following someone else's standard, is the overton window, and is itself immoral action that constitutes a threat against the freedom of your consciousness to be what nobody has any rational entitlement for violating. Some day, my friend, I hope we smash that fucking window to pieces as an asseretion of our existential authority to say, think, and feel what ever we so desire, so long as it does not violate anyone else's right to do the same. In other words, achieving the literal base line ethical position that is self-evident.

So even now there are rules and regulations what to follow, just for functionality, not for control or power — ssu

Oh, yeah? Which ones? Which ones are not for control? And tell me, when did we sign, click, or verbally agree to abide by these rules? And don't tell me anything about implicit contracts, that's evil nonsense the controllers tell you to make you feel good about being a slave to whatever degree they can get away with making you one. I want to know where you ever agreed to follow such rules, so as to be allowed into a domain that you had not created, and to whom you gave voluntary consent to be governed yourself to make sure you were folllowing them. Because as far as I can tell, this is your first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where here do you see an overton window that you agreed to, or was implied you would ever have to agree to? Who ever applies such a window to you under threat of force, violates this here; which happens to be that standard of ethics I spoke about above written in law. Notice that word sequence: no law, prohibition, or abridging. No force, no standing your way, no regulating your speech in any way.

This all to mean a striking difference between what is threatend against you by an overton window, and what you voluntarily agreed to abide by before entering an establishment are different. One is for power, the other is basic ethics.

Seems a tad polarizing.