For most of human history, and certainly most of American history, identity was everything. It was legal to prevent women from voting until 1920. It was legal to exclude black people from public life until 1965. And it was illegal to be homosexual in some states until
John McWhorter suggests calling 'woke' antiracism 'neoracism' since it's what's become 'respectable' on the far left and it's every bit as identitarian as the identity politics of the right. He prefers to call them 'the Elect' since they're self-appointed arbiters and moral judges of a religion they've created based on the only framework most of them know, that of fundamentalist Christian religion.
This guy doesn't see how much he's part of the problem rather than the solution.
Every time I hear some American yahoo go on about how the Jordan Neely case is a 'lynching', I think to myself how privileged they are that they never need to ride public transportation. I do, and I avoid anyone who's yelling like a maniac - like the guy who was ranting at one of the stations yesterday because he had to wait an hour for a shuttle bus. I share his frustration, but I watched to see if he would get on a bus or head for the train, because I was going to hang back for a few minutes if he went for the latter.
People are regularly victimized on public transportation in many cities and I'm quite sure everyone in Neely's car was grateful someone put an end to his reign of terror. It's unfortunate that it ended the way it did, and interesting that the two black guys who helped held him down are not similarly accused of participating in the 'lynching'.
"John McWhorter suggests calling 'woke' antiracism 'neoracism' since it's what's become 'respectable' on the far left and it's every bit as identitarian as the identity politics of the right"
Yep, I've ben calling it neoracism for a while too. The name just fits so perfectly. And as T so ably demonstrates, the neoracists have no problem being just as racist as the worst of the dreaded "far right" if they encounter a person of colour with "the wrong opinion." The hypocrisy makes me sick.
Anybody calling Neely's death a "lynching" is completely ignorant of what a lynching is. And doesn't *care* what it is. It's just a handy word to justify whatever reflected victimhood they want to claim.
As a woman who rode the NYC subway during the notoriously violent 70s, I learned that the best defense is a good offense when it came to taking public transportation. In the event of feeling threatened by, or even just undue interest from, any male passengers while on the subway or waiting for the subway, I would simply act like the 'crazy' people I otherwise would cross the street to avoid. It's like magic: everyone, including criminals and rapists, is afraid of 'crazy' people. Babbling incoherently while waving your arms may be difficult the first time, but after that it was a breeze. Occasionally I would get into a conversation, which was interesting. But usually the instant result was a people-free zone of ten feet or so all around me.
I admire Steve for the attempt at equanimity, but I'm not so sure about the wisdom. Because so many people are electively stupid or so set in their ways that to maintain composure with them, to attempt fairness, is at heart to deny reality, to engage in futility. I'm actually encourage to see Steve call the guy an idiot in this exchange, that shows a strengthening bond with the truth.
I lost one of my oldest friends out of the very few I have left this week. I lost him to his nihilism, his worsening temper, and his pigheadedness about "trans"; though he's smart enough to know better, he swallows the bullshit all the way to the reel. He says it costs him nothing to use the magic pronouns, he believes that "trans" is the successor to the gay rights movement, and he is incapable of seeing my disgust with "trans" as anything but bigotry. And he kept equating me with MAGA; his wife left him for sexual adventurism and she went completely Trump, andis moving to some red state to escape the "Dimocrat Part." He has to bite his lips with her but he's free to yell at me. He refuses to read my essay (https://bit.ly/3OhEKoF) that would give my real reasons.
His accommodation to his idiot wife and his son, whose wife won't allow them to meet, by taking an "I don't give a damn" attitude, which has been wearing me out because I am struggling to remain engaged with life. When Trump's first indictment came I thought our next phone call was going to be exuberant, but instead he just sighed and articulated toxic soul-crushing pessimism. That was the beginning.
I had agreed not to talk about "trans" anymore but it came up on our last call and he blew up and hung up. After some back and forth he finally told me we are not going to be in contact anymore. I sent an email saying what I had been inhibited from saying because of his worsening temper.
What does this have to do with this column? His intransigence. I've known this guy twenty years and he knows full well that I am not a MAGA bigot but that's the only explanation he's willing to examine, just as bigots are almost universally (repeat: almost, I am not forgetting Daryl Davis) incapable of examining their prejudices. In the case of my friend it's individually absurd; in the case of bigots, it tends to go back generations. Sen. Cotton is a seventh-generation hater.
Chris, the same thing happened to me with a friend last Christmas. I think it's more of a mutual dropping of the friendship, but on my end his growing anger and emotional volatility has worn quite thin. He lost two arguments with me last time around because he couldn't back up his dumbass conspiracy theories with facts. When he screamed my question was offensive at one of them I was like, okay, we're done here. My question wasn't offensive, it was logical and truth-finding and he had zero evidence (in fact later he bitched about 'what evidence do I need'? Well, something other than a conspiracy theory you pulled out of your ass....
And, I confess, I reconnected with a friend at my birthday party a few weeks ago, and then when we were talking at the end I floated a trial balloon to test her wokeness...and she got *really* upset when I said Lia Thomas had no business being on a swim team.
Since then I keep thinking I should reach out to her, but I don't. I've lost *so* much respect for her since then...
I can't deal with the guy's temper or his "I don't give a damn" approach to everything.
The call after Trump's indictment really pissed me off. The guy is playing a game with himself, and the name of the game is "I lose."
It's too bad, but we might have gone on a few weeks longer were it not his fingers-in-ears reaction to the "trans" thing. I'm really worried that a lot of Democratic parents are going to vote GOP to protect their kids from the surgeons, and he wouldn't even let me talk about that.
When noon Sunday came and went with no call, I actually felt relieved.
People often, perhaps most of the time, instinctively chant a tribal shibboleth to express the view that displays their membership in the tribe that they are identified with. In this case, membership in "woke".
A useful question for them is, "Do you actually believe that or are you saying what is expected of you by your tribe? Do you have the guts to go against one of your tribe's check box items if you know in your heart of hearts that it is something that you don't really buy into?" Depending upon the tribe, "Are you just [?]'s bitch?" - 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘭 [?] 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘗𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘪 𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱
I wonder about this a lot. Do people actually believe that a man who mutters "I identify as a woman" actually is one? Really? That goes way past quibbling over definitions of words.
I am truly shocked at the extent to which institutions, government, workplaces ... have bough into this rubbish. Especially since even if you count the fake "trans" (0.6%) along with the GID sufferers (0.0065%), you have the tiniest minority there is.
And how anyone who's had to sit through an extended lecture on "my gender identity" or seen Dylan Mulvaney or any one of a number of YT videos like "It's MA'AM!" can possibly believe these people deserve respect.
Right now I'm reading Helen Joyce's 'Trans' and it spoke of trans as another 'psychic epidemic' - and these traditionally suck in doctors, academics, the press, popular opinion. I've bookmarked it to write about it in a future blog post.
These were my thoughts exactly as I was reading Chris's post. Everyone so desperately wants to belong to a tribe. I am wary of groups due to childhood bullying and this wariness has served me well during this hysterical era. I am not getting sucked in by either side and can maintain some rational thoughts outside of the peddled narratives.
Beyond this, why does everyone want someone else to do their thinking for them? Maybe it makes them feel safe if they hold what they believe to be the "right answer."
Absolutely. It's hilarious to me that anybody is trying to pretend any different. Some people will go to truly incredible lengths to defend the indefensible.
That was certainly the most well-rounded description of "identity politics" I've read. I sometimes suspect people like T have the social version of a fetish when it comes to the suffering of individuals from historically marginalized communities. Every new incident is an endorphin rush.
Another tragic irony: for a guy who identifies himself by a single capital letter, he sure is quick to abandon capitalization in his writing.
"I sometimes suspect people like T have the social version of a fetish when it comes to the suffering of individuals from historically marginalized communities"
Spot on. Fetish is exactly the word. Which is why, in part, it's so impervious to reason.
You’re on fire, man! Great writing. But could you spell it out for me, because I’m stupid. What exactly is it that you feel T is not-so-subtly implying about black people?
T argues that it's appropriate to call Neely's death a "lynching" because "a lynching is the murder of a black man in service of white supremacy" and because he posed a "perceived threat to white comfort & social order"
The problem is, if a mentally ill, violent man is only a threat to *white* comfort, if it's in the service of white supremacy to try and stop this man before he murders innocent people on a train, what does that say about a society that would be run by black people?
Would violent, mentally ill people be so commonplace in a society without white supremacy that people wouldn't be scared? Are black people normally comfortable around this kind of dysfunction?
As far as I can see, the idea that only white people would be concerned about this obvious societal problem suggest that black people are more inclined to accept or exhibit behaviour like this.
That they are victims, childish, unable to manage their affairs, needing to be led and cosseted and caretaken by all-powerful whitey. Thus, the lowering of standards, the bending of the rules to make it easier for black people to improve diversity optics in American institutions.
It's a sort of infantilization, a stripping of dignity, a dehumanization. He is implying that these people believe that white paternalism is the answer to black people's problems - which is an idea that is about as parallel to old-school racism as you can get.
I don't blame him for bristling; for being angry. This posturing solves nothing except publicly promoting their tribal bona fides at the expense of black people's dignity. It most certainly is not a healthy way forward.
I would like to address a point you made to me on the other thread(s) where discussion of Andrew Tate being attractive to young men because supposedly there's no one else out there saying the things they need to hear (albeit mixed with misogyny). My stance was that the misogyny was what draws these young men, since there are countless motivational speakers and life coaches online inspiring boys and men to improve themselves and live their best lives (without misogyny) that these people could choose to tune into instead.
You insinuated that I must not really care about boys and men. On the contrary I am currently working with a small group of the same to acquire land where they can live and work, commune style. Where they can form real life bonds and create a life long brotherhood. All these years the Manosphere spent whining and fighting online, they could have created, dozens, hundreds, of such communities across this country, Maybe even thousands around the world. Nothing positive and practical for boys and men has come out of the Manosphere and we certainly never saw Tate do anything for us.
This idea that mens' problems are everyone's problems, including women, is not acceptable. Sure, women who are closely related to boys and men, like their mothers, are responsible to a certain degree to care for them, but at some point OTHER MEN have to step up and provide friendship and brotherhood for each other. Real life bonds. Real life community. This isn't women's responsibility.
Tate, and here's where "identity" comes in, is currently playing the Muslim card. Even before his "conversion" to Islam he was boldly declaring that "Islam fixes all social problems." So now he's aggressively pushing "the ummah" on his viewers,, falsely giving the impression to naive fans that "here lies true brotherhood and community for you and you will get your young, hot, submissive wife (or wives, up to 4) and live alpha ever after".
Young, naive men, lacking in identity and who have no prior knowledge of Islam are falling for it.
But how long will Tate "identify" as a Muslim? I give 2 years.
"My stance was that the misogyny was what draws these young men, since there are countless motivational speakers and life coaches online inspiring boys and men to improve themselves and live their best lives"
Yeah, as I remember, I asked you who these people were. Because I can't think of anybody with anything close to Andrew Tate's platform except Jordan Peterson. Peterson is a better, but definitely not good option. Especially recently. And as I said, most of the people I *can* think of who try to speak about men's issues are derided as misogynists and creeps and attacked by so-called feminists (If I didn't mention her already, Cassie Jaye is a classic example of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&t=766s).
So yeah, who are these "countless people"? It's easy to say they're out there, but where? And are they being heard by young people? Sadly, in today's information landscape, being controversial and stirring up people's emotions is a shortcut to popularity. The sensible, considered people do get heard, but it's a longer road. And this goes at least quadruple for the information young people, men and women, are exposed to.
I don't know whether you care about men and boys. I'm sure that there are specific men and boys who you care about. But I know that the way you talk about men and boys in general suggests you don't (and don't want to) think about them very carefully. You seem very happy to conflate masculinity in general and the "manosphere." And in most cases, one has nothing to do with the other.
Your criticism of Tate are spot on though. And yeah, lots of "influencers are doing the reborn Muslim/Christian thing at the moment. I've never in my life said a word in defence of Tate. He's a parasite taking advantage of the struggles and insecurities of young men (not to mention the women he's taking advantage of). But the *reason* it works is not (simply or even mostly) misogyny.
It's because there are lots of young men out there who are genuinely struggling in life. Romantically, socially, psychologically, in finding purpose. And lots of people making simplistic, dismissive and empathy-free assertions about why that is. It's because there are people who find it "unacceptable" to suggest that every adult should be trying to help young people, regardless of what they have between their legs, to grow up happy and loved and mentally healthy. In an environment where any group of people feel that their problems aren't taken seriously, they're more susceptible to grifters and their terrible ideas.
I never said it was women's responsibility to fix this. But I don't think you, or anybody else, wants a society where women's problems are siloed off to be dealt with just by women and men's problems are filed off to be dealt with just by men. This would be an insane and awful society. Instead, I'd encourage everybody to take the next generation's problems seriously. And to think about them as carefully as they can.
Google and Youtube search box with "motivational speaker" can help you find a lot of these people. It's been years since I tuned in but the internet is crawling with them. Tate paid people to manipulate the algorithm which shot him to the top and that's why out of nowhere his clips were popping up.
I see the problems young men and women are facing today as natural outcomes of Capitalism. But people want to blame them on Feminism instead. Also to note, if you travel around the world there are many countries where unmarried young adults who are not "dating" don't "feel lonely" because social life is comprised mainly of immediate and extended family members. One has to ask why "incels" are not socializing with their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, nieces and nephews? In other countries young people experience joy from doing so. Why not in the USA or similar countries? There are nursing and old age homes here with lonely elders who would LOVE to be visited by these young men. Why isn't that happening? At some point, at least for some (I think many) loneliness becomes a lifestyle choice. Go visit family members. Volunteer locally with kids, elders, the homeless. I don't get this sitting alone in a room with closed curtains and whining about "loneliness" all day on the internet. If someone needs a few months to vent, fine. But at some point we have to ask why they are not making connections with other humans in need and volunteering in their towns.
“ Google and Youtube search box with "motivational speaker" can help you find a lot of these people”
Come on now, this is silly. The fact that there are lots of motivational speakers in the world does not mean there are lots of people speaking accurately and empathetic ally to young men about the problems they face.
“ One has to ask why "incels" are not socializing with their parents,”
One has to ask why the only way you can conceive of struggling young men is that they’re incels or part of the “manosphere.” I know the clue is in your name, but come on. How are you so comfortable embracing such a one dimensional view?
I’m right in the middle of writing an article that starts with the story of Elliott Rodger. I’m familiar with incels. If you think those freaks represent young men, you’ve lost the plot.
All that said, yes, Dr. K is absolutely fantastic. I really admire him and the work he’s doing. Not familiar with Hamza. But yes, better than Tate isn’t too high a bar. I would love to see more people like Dr K out there. Truly. Sadly, I think the reason his audience isn’t ten times larger is just that he doesn’t attest the drama that kids of all ages and sexes are drawn to.
Incel just means involuntarily celibate, not necessarily homicidal maniac. The media keeps pushing out this narrative of "young men are sexless, young men are lonely" and that's the root of their issues. That's why I refer to "incels" a lot. Hamza is far above Tate as he's not a criminal and doesn't spew hateful rhetoric .
"Incel just means involuntarily celibate, not necessarily homicidal maniac."
This is a bit like arguing that Nazi just means national socialist, no? Incel is widely used in a pejorative sense to describe weak, bitter, failed men whose self-loathing has turned--or is just about to turn--into a deep hatred of women.
It functions in exactly the same way as terms like "Karen" and "feminazi" and "woke"; to collectivise a bunch of people to avoid the danger of thinking about them seriously and accidentally humanising them.
Maybe you're in a different bubble to me, but I very rarely see the narrative you're describing. The news media very rarely talks about young men in any meaningful, empathetic way. And even more rarely in a positive or productive way.
Incels in the online world have only themselves to blame for their bad reputation considering that forums are chockful of comments and posts praising Eliot Rodger and other killers, what to speak of the general hateful rants about "foids" and others.
The term "incel" was first coined over a decade ago by a WOMAN (if I recall correctly, a lesbian) who used it to describe her situation.
The news media are churning out a lot of pieces about the "epidemic" of loneliness and, get this, sexlessness, of young men today. Especially conservatives and the right wing somehow think sexlessness amongst unmarried men is now somehow a problem.
Well, he's not a motivational speaker, he's a therapist, but he often focuses on men's issues, incels, etc., and a lot of viewers say they've been helped by him. Dr. K The Healthy Gamer;
You have the patience of a saint. This guy is talking into a vacuum. He takes no time to consider your point or even remotely re-examine his position.
John McWhorter suggests calling 'woke' antiracism 'neoracism' since it's what's become 'respectable' on the far left and it's every bit as identitarian as the identity politics of the right. He prefers to call them 'the Elect' since they're self-appointed arbiters and moral judges of a religion they've created based on the only framework most of them know, that of fundamentalist Christian religion.
This guy doesn't see how much he's part of the problem rather than the solution.
Every time I hear some American yahoo go on about how the Jordan Neely case is a 'lynching', I think to myself how privileged they are that they never need to ride public transportation. I do, and I avoid anyone who's yelling like a maniac - like the guy who was ranting at one of the stations yesterday because he had to wait an hour for a shuttle bus. I share his frustration, but I watched to see if he would get on a bus or head for the train, because I was going to hang back for a few minutes if he went for the latter.
People are regularly victimized on public transportation in many cities and I'm quite sure everyone in Neely's car was grateful someone put an end to his reign of terror. It's unfortunate that it ended the way it did, and interesting that the two black guys who helped held him down are not similarly accused of participating in the 'lynching'.
"John McWhorter suggests calling 'woke' antiracism 'neoracism' since it's what's become 'respectable' on the far left and it's every bit as identitarian as the identity politics of the right"
Yep, I've ben calling it neoracism for a while too. The name just fits so perfectly. And as T so ably demonstrates, the neoracists have no problem being just as racist as the worst of the dreaded "far right" if they encounter a person of colour with "the wrong opinion." The hypocrisy makes me sick.
Anybody calling Neely's death a "lynching" is completely ignorant of what a lynching is. And doesn't *care* what it is. It's just a handy word to justify whatever reflected victimhood they want to claim.
As a woman who rode the NYC subway during the notoriously violent 70s, I learned that the best defense is a good offense when it came to taking public transportation. In the event of feeling threatened by, or even just undue interest from, any male passengers while on the subway or waiting for the subway, I would simply act like the 'crazy' people I otherwise would cross the street to avoid. It's like magic: everyone, including criminals and rapists, is afraid of 'crazy' people. Babbling incoherently while waving your arms may be difficult the first time, but after that it was a breeze. Occasionally I would get into a conversation, which was interesting. But usually the instant result was a people-free zone of ten feet or so all around me.
I'm sorry you had to do that just to feel safe.
It’s very difficult to converse with someone who is full of self-importance and “righteous” indignation. I don’t know how you do it, Steve.
I admire Steve for the attempt at equanimity, but I'm not so sure about the wisdom. Because so many people are electively stupid or so set in their ways that to maintain composure with them, to attempt fairness, is at heart to deny reality, to engage in futility. I'm actually encourage to see Steve call the guy an idiot in this exchange, that shows a strengthening bond with the truth.
I lost one of my oldest friends out of the very few I have left this week. I lost him to his nihilism, his worsening temper, and his pigheadedness about "trans"; though he's smart enough to know better, he swallows the bullshit all the way to the reel. He says it costs him nothing to use the magic pronouns, he believes that "trans" is the successor to the gay rights movement, and he is incapable of seeing my disgust with "trans" as anything but bigotry. And he kept equating me with MAGA; his wife left him for sexual adventurism and she went completely Trump, andis moving to some red state to escape the "Dimocrat Part." He has to bite his lips with her but he's free to yell at me. He refuses to read my essay (https://bit.ly/3OhEKoF) that would give my real reasons.
His accommodation to his idiot wife and his son, whose wife won't allow them to meet, by taking an "I don't give a damn" attitude, which has been wearing me out because I am struggling to remain engaged with life. When Trump's first indictment came I thought our next phone call was going to be exuberant, but instead he just sighed and articulated toxic soul-crushing pessimism. That was the beginning.
I had agreed not to talk about "trans" anymore but it came up on our last call and he blew up and hung up. After some back and forth he finally told me we are not going to be in contact anymore. I sent an email saying what I had been inhibited from saying because of his worsening temper.
What does this have to do with this column? His intransigence. I've known this guy twenty years and he knows full well that I am not a MAGA bigot but that's the only explanation he's willing to examine, just as bigots are almost universally (repeat: almost, I am not forgetting Daryl Davis) incapable of examining their prejudices. In the case of my friend it's individually absurd; in the case of bigots, it tends to go back generations. Sen. Cotton is a seventh-generation hater.
Chris, the same thing happened to me with a friend last Christmas. I think it's more of a mutual dropping of the friendship, but on my end his growing anger and emotional volatility has worn quite thin. He lost two arguments with me last time around because he couldn't back up his dumbass conspiracy theories with facts. When he screamed my question was offensive at one of them I was like, okay, we're done here. My question wasn't offensive, it was logical and truth-finding and he had zero evidence (in fact later he bitched about 'what evidence do I need'? Well, something other than a conspiracy theory you pulled out of your ass....
And, I confess, I reconnected with a friend at my birthday party a few weeks ago, and then when we were talking at the end I floated a trial balloon to test her wokeness...and she got *really* upset when I said Lia Thomas had no business being on a swim team.
Since then I keep thinking I should reach out to her, but I don't. I've lost *so* much respect for her since then...
I can't deal with the guy's temper or his "I don't give a damn" approach to everything.
The call after Trump's indictment really pissed me off. The guy is playing a game with himself, and the name of the game is "I lose."
It's too bad, but we might have gone on a few weeks longer were it not his fingers-in-ears reaction to the "trans" thing. I'm really worried that a lot of Democratic parents are going to vote GOP to protect their kids from the surgeons, and he wouldn't even let me talk about that.
When noon Sunday came and went with no call, I actually felt relieved.
People often, perhaps most of the time, instinctively chant a tribal shibboleth to express the view that displays their membership in the tribe that they are identified with. In this case, membership in "woke".
A useful question for them is, "Do you actually believe that or are you saying what is expected of you by your tribe? Do you have the guts to go against one of your tribe's check box items if you know in your heart of hearts that it is something that you don't really buy into?" Depending upon the tribe, "Are you just [?]'s bitch?" - 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘭 [?] 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘗𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘪 𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱
I wonder about this a lot. Do people actually believe that a man who mutters "I identify as a woman" actually is one? Really? That goes way past quibbling over definitions of words.
I am truly shocked at the extent to which institutions, government, workplaces ... have bough into this rubbish. Especially since even if you count the fake "trans" (0.6%) along with the GID sufferers (0.0065%), you have the tiniest minority there is.
And how anyone who's had to sit through an extended lecture on "my gender identity" or seen Dylan Mulvaney or any one of a number of YT videos like "It's MA'AM!" can possibly believe these people deserve respect.
Right now I'm reading Helen Joyce's 'Trans' and it spoke of trans as another 'psychic epidemic' - and these traditionally suck in doctors, academics, the press, popular opinion. I've bookmarked it to write about it in a future blog post.
Pelosi is gone. How about 'AOC's bitch'? Pelosi is a very bright woman with her head straight on her shoulders. I've lost all respect for wokie AOC.
Generic voice that dictates tribal policy.
These were my thoughts exactly as I was reading Chris's post. Everyone so desperately wants to belong to a tribe. I am wary of groups due to childhood bullying and this wariness has served me well during this hysterical era. I am not getting sucked in by either side and can maintain some rational thoughts outside of the peddled narratives.
Beyond this, why does everyone want someone else to do their thinking for them? Maybe it makes them feel safe if they hold what they believe to be the "right answer."
For me my thought is often, why should that issue belong to a political party or its default current ideology?
If I'm approached and threatened by someone who appears to be mentally unstable, I'm going to be afraid no matter their color, sex, age, etc.
Absolutely. It's hilarious to me that anybody is trying to pretend any different. Some people will go to truly incredible lengths to defend the indefensible.
That would be about half the USA right now
That was certainly the most well-rounded description of "identity politics" I've read. I sometimes suspect people like T have the social version of a fetish when it comes to the suffering of individuals from historically marginalized communities. Every new incident is an endorphin rush.
Another tragic irony: for a guy who identifies himself by a single capital letter, he sure is quick to abandon capitalization in his writing.
"I sometimes suspect people like T have the social version of a fetish when it comes to the suffering of individuals from historically marginalized communities"
Spot on. Fetish is exactly the word. Which is why, in part, it's so impervious to reason.
You’re on fire, man! Great writing. But could you spell it out for me, because I’m stupid. What exactly is it that you feel T is not-so-subtly implying about black people?
T argues that it's appropriate to call Neely's death a "lynching" because "a lynching is the murder of a black man in service of white supremacy" and because he posed a "perceived threat to white comfort & social order"
The problem is, if a mentally ill, violent man is only a threat to *white* comfort, if it's in the service of white supremacy to try and stop this man before he murders innocent people on a train, what does that say about a society that would be run by black people?
Would violent, mentally ill people be so commonplace in a society without white supremacy that people wouldn't be scared? Are black people normally comfortable around this kind of dysfunction?
As far as I can see, the idea that only white people would be concerned about this obvious societal problem suggest that black people are more inclined to accept or exhibit behaviour like this.
That they are victims, childish, unable to manage their affairs, needing to be led and cosseted and caretaken by all-powerful whitey. Thus, the lowering of standards, the bending of the rules to make it easier for black people to improve diversity optics in American institutions.
It's a sort of infantilization, a stripping of dignity, a dehumanization. He is implying that these people believe that white paternalism is the answer to black people's problems - which is an idea that is about as parallel to old-school racism as you can get.
I don't blame him for bristling; for being angry. This posturing solves nothing except publicly promoting their tribal bona fides at the expense of black people's dignity. It most certainly is not a healthy way forward.
I would like to address a point you made to me on the other thread(s) where discussion of Andrew Tate being attractive to young men because supposedly there's no one else out there saying the things they need to hear (albeit mixed with misogyny). My stance was that the misogyny was what draws these young men, since there are countless motivational speakers and life coaches online inspiring boys and men to improve themselves and live their best lives (without misogyny) that these people could choose to tune into instead.
You insinuated that I must not really care about boys and men. On the contrary I am currently working with a small group of the same to acquire land where they can live and work, commune style. Where they can form real life bonds and create a life long brotherhood. All these years the Manosphere spent whining and fighting online, they could have created, dozens, hundreds, of such communities across this country, Maybe even thousands around the world. Nothing positive and practical for boys and men has come out of the Manosphere and we certainly never saw Tate do anything for us.
This idea that mens' problems are everyone's problems, including women, is not acceptable. Sure, women who are closely related to boys and men, like their mothers, are responsible to a certain degree to care for them, but at some point OTHER MEN have to step up and provide friendship and brotherhood for each other. Real life bonds. Real life community. This isn't women's responsibility.
Tate, and here's where "identity" comes in, is currently playing the Muslim card. Even before his "conversion" to Islam he was boldly declaring that "Islam fixes all social problems." So now he's aggressively pushing "the ummah" on his viewers,, falsely giving the impression to naive fans that "here lies true brotherhood and community for you and you will get your young, hot, submissive wife (or wives, up to 4) and live alpha ever after".
Young, naive men, lacking in identity and who have no prior knowledge of Islam are falling for it.
But how long will Tate "identify" as a Muslim? I give 2 years.
"My stance was that the misogyny was what draws these young men, since there are countless motivational speakers and life coaches online inspiring boys and men to improve themselves and live their best lives"
Yeah, as I remember, I asked you who these people were. Because I can't think of anybody with anything close to Andrew Tate's platform except Jordan Peterson. Peterson is a better, but definitely not good option. Especially recently. And as I said, most of the people I *can* think of who try to speak about men's issues are derided as misogynists and creeps and attacked by so-called feminists (If I didn't mention her already, Cassie Jaye is a classic example of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&t=766s).
So yeah, who are these "countless people"? It's easy to say they're out there, but where? And are they being heard by young people? Sadly, in today's information landscape, being controversial and stirring up people's emotions is a shortcut to popularity. The sensible, considered people do get heard, but it's a longer road. And this goes at least quadruple for the information young people, men and women, are exposed to.
I don't know whether you care about men and boys. I'm sure that there are specific men and boys who you care about. But I know that the way you talk about men and boys in general suggests you don't (and don't want to) think about them very carefully. You seem very happy to conflate masculinity in general and the "manosphere." And in most cases, one has nothing to do with the other.
Your criticism of Tate are spot on though. And yeah, lots of "influencers are doing the reborn Muslim/Christian thing at the moment. I've never in my life said a word in defence of Tate. He's a parasite taking advantage of the struggles and insecurities of young men (not to mention the women he's taking advantage of). But the *reason* it works is not (simply or even mostly) misogyny.
It's because there are lots of young men out there who are genuinely struggling in life. Romantically, socially, psychologically, in finding purpose. And lots of people making simplistic, dismissive and empathy-free assertions about why that is. It's because there are people who find it "unacceptable" to suggest that every adult should be trying to help young people, regardless of what they have between their legs, to grow up happy and loved and mentally healthy. In an environment where any group of people feel that their problems aren't taken seriously, they're more susceptible to grifters and their terrible ideas.
I never said it was women's responsibility to fix this. But I don't think you, or anybody else, wants a society where women's problems are siloed off to be dealt with just by women and men's problems are filed off to be dealt with just by men. This would be an insane and awful society. Instead, I'd encourage everybody to take the next generation's problems seriously. And to think about them as carefully as they can.
Google and Youtube search box with "motivational speaker" can help you find a lot of these people. It's been years since I tuned in but the internet is crawling with them. Tate paid people to manipulate the algorithm which shot him to the top and that's why out of nowhere his clips were popping up.
I see the problems young men and women are facing today as natural outcomes of Capitalism. But people want to blame them on Feminism instead. Also to note, if you travel around the world there are many countries where unmarried young adults who are not "dating" don't "feel lonely" because social life is comprised mainly of immediate and extended family members. One has to ask why "incels" are not socializing with their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, nieces and nephews? In other countries young people experience joy from doing so. Why not in the USA or similar countries? There are nursing and old age homes here with lonely elders who would LOVE to be visited by these young men. Why isn't that happening? At some point, at least for some (I think many) loneliness becomes a lifestyle choice. Go visit family members. Volunteer locally with kids, elders, the homeless. I don't get this sitting alone in a room with closed curtains and whining about "loneliness" all day on the internet. If someone needs a few months to vent, fine. But at some point we have to ask why they are not making connections with other humans in need and volunteering in their towns.
“ Google and Youtube search box with "motivational speaker" can help you find a lot of these people”
Come on now, this is silly. The fact that there are lots of motivational speakers in the world does not mean there are lots of people speaking accurately and empathetic ally to young men about the problems they face.
“ One has to ask why "incels" are not socializing with their parents,”
One has to ask why the only way you can conceive of struggling young men is that they’re incels or part of the “manosphere.” I know the clue is in your name, but come on. How are you so comfortable embracing such a one dimensional view?
I’m right in the middle of writing an article that starts with the story of Elliott Rodger. I’m familiar with incels. If you think those freaks represent young men, you’ve lost the plot.
All that said, yes, Dr. K is absolutely fantastic. I really admire him and the work he’s doing. Not familiar with Hamza. But yes, better than Tate isn’t too high a bar. I would love to see more people like Dr K out there. Truly. Sadly, I think the reason his audience isn’t ten times larger is just that he doesn’t attest the drama that kids of all ages and sexes are drawn to.
Incel just means involuntarily celibate, not necessarily homicidal maniac. The media keeps pushing out this narrative of "young men are sexless, young men are lonely" and that's the root of their issues. That's why I refer to "incels" a lot. Hamza is far above Tate as he's not a criminal and doesn't spew hateful rhetoric .
"Incel just means involuntarily celibate, not necessarily homicidal maniac."
This is a bit like arguing that Nazi just means national socialist, no? Incel is widely used in a pejorative sense to describe weak, bitter, failed men whose self-loathing has turned--or is just about to turn--into a deep hatred of women.
It functions in exactly the same way as terms like "Karen" and "feminazi" and "woke"; to collectivise a bunch of people to avoid the danger of thinking about them seriously and accidentally humanising them.
Maybe you're in a different bubble to me, but I very rarely see the narrative you're describing. The news media very rarely talks about young men in any meaningful, empathetic way. And even more rarely in a positive or productive way.
Incels in the online world have only themselves to blame for their bad reputation considering that forums are chockful of comments and posts praising Eliot Rodger and other killers, what to speak of the general hateful rants about "foids" and others.
The term "incel" was first coined over a decade ago by a WOMAN (if I recall correctly, a lesbian) who used it to describe her situation.
The news media are churning out a lot of pieces about the "epidemic" of loneliness and, get this, sexlessness, of young men today. Especially conservatives and the right wing somehow think sexlessness amongst unmarried men is now somehow a problem.
Well, he's not a motivational speaker, he's a therapist, but he often focuses on men's issues, incels, etc., and a lot of viewers say they've been helped by him. Dr. K The Healthy Gamer;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnWbj70TTY
Then there's Hamza who is kind of controversial for various reasons, but much better than Tate;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMlRMAZ0lB0