The Clique, and other greivances

[Borachio]

I think being mean is a bigger problem than clique... er... cliquism... er... the putative existence of a clique.

What's the use in being mean to people?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, so this ended up running too long.

(And taking too long, so any who may be offended should know I am already self-punished by the time lost writing the essay).

Spoiler :

I’m with those who believe that, insofar as there is a “Clique,” it is simply a group of like-minded posters, rather than a group who positively conspire offforum to dogpile other posters onforum. Their like-mindedness seems to me to be grounded in a concern with inequality and injustice, particularly with systematic forms of inequality and injustice, by which whole categories of people are accorded fewer rights, or otherwise demeaned, within a society. Where they see signs of such injustice, even just posts on an internet forum, they are zealous to combat it. Indeed, so zealous are they that I often, in an elaborate Spenserian allegory, imagine them as Spearmen Jousting at Wrong.

(The singular, by the way, is deliberately chosen. Because of their interest in systematic oppression, they will often take specific instances of wrongdoing, specific wrongs as symptomatic of a larger Wrong endemic to society at large, and it is that Wrong at which they are most vigorously tilting.)

Because of this systematic focus by members of the SJW “Clique” on the power possessed by some broad categories of people within a society relative to other broad categories of people, there is a specific kind of topic on which non-clique members tend to get into conflict with members of “The Clique.” Those issues are ones having to do with historically (and still) privileged and advantaged categories of people: heterosexuals, whites, Westerners, men. The conflicts concern the status of such categories of people in discussions about historically (and still) disadvantaged and oppressed categories of people. Do men have any right to speak to issues concerning women, or are men inherently and categorically oppressors? Is it okay to make sweeping negative comments about whites such as one would not make about people of any other race? Is it automatically racist if a Westerner casts doubt on the ability of the Chinese military to construct superfast submarines?

The primary kind of poster with whom the SJWs come in conflict, I’m going to call a Mr. A. Mr. A is a man (duh), a straight, cisgendered, white man, but one who refuses simply to acknowledge that the ills of society simply emerge from the dominant status of straight, white men.* Maybe he thinks equality has already been substantially achieved. Maybe he thinks the previously disadvantaged have become oppressive in various ways in their turn. Maybe he thinks a tendency to oppress others is a human failing rather than one specifically to be associated with people of a particular race, gender or sexual orientation. What is certain is that he wants to be regarded as an individual. He himself didn’t hold slaves, gas Jews and bind gay men to fence posts. Why should he be on the hook for those things done by people with whom he happens to share a race, gender and sexuality? Particularly if reducing individual people to mere members of a group is one of the reprehensible things that dominant groups do!

So the typical conflict plays out like this little two-line drama:

SJW: White people have got a pretty terrible history.
MRA: Not all white people!

The MRA’s response here is actually a meme for SJWs. They regard it as a dodge by MRAs try to avoid confronting or deny the existence of systematic racism (sexism, heteronormativism, ). But the thing is, it’s actually the key to this whole mess. SJWs, at least the ringleaders of CFCOT’s “Clique” of SJWs, don’t really believe that historically- (and still-) dominant groups are categorically bad, 1) because their own individual virtue is not compromised by membership in one or all of these categories and 2) because their idealism demands they believe there is a right way that members of once-(and-still-) dominant classes could act to further the cause of greater equality in the world. (Who wants a Hobbsian war of all (identity groups) against all (identity groups)?)

Why, then, don’t SJWs try, invitingly, to bring other people over to their views? Why is snark regarded as their characteristic rhetorical mode? Why do they often seem to charge, full gallop, lance couched, at every possible** instance of sexo-raci-Occido-heteronormativity? Why have they driven a sensitive, intelligent young (straight, white) man, who regards himself as pro-equality and would once have happily labeled himself a feminist, into a Retreat of Embittered Menlancholia?

I have begun to suspect that it is because of their own precariousness in the saddle. A person who is straight, white and/or male but who comes to believe that the groups--straights, whites, men--are what is Wrong with society finds himself in the difficult and insecure position of needing to distance himself from himself. Please don’t take offense, “Clique”rs. This is only partly a pschycolgical analysis; “insecure” is mostly intended as a structural analysis of the dichotomous position such people inhabit. One CFCer (who might be regarded as a chief member of the “Clique”) has indicated that, in the circles in which he runs, he does not refer to himself as a “feminist,” but only a “feminist-ally,” deferentially acknowledging, it would seem, his irremediable maleness. He thinks of himself as a “class traitor,” (a traitor to his “class” of men; ditto for white and straight, presumably). Now, as I read the tone of that revelation, he prides himself on his “class traitor” status. But the flip side of that formulation is that there is no amount of treachery that can ever finally divorce him from that opprobrious class. One thinks of the tormented Miltonic Satan who “from Hell, not one step more than from himself can fly.” (God help the man so wrapt in Error’s endless train!)

(Now the structural*** analysis does turn partly psychological). Someone who frames up history and politics in the way I have sketched above--identity groups dominating other identity groups--and regards that as reprehensible, but is himself a member or one or more of those historically dominant and dominating groups, may need to take steps to assure himself that he is more a sheep than a goat (Matt 25:32); and he can do that by contrasting his progressive, egalitarian views with those of the benighted, retrograde views of the goats. He may, indeed, be positively on the look-out for such benighted views, yea, even a shade over-eager to construe other posters’ comments as racist, sexist, homophobic . Thus the endless battles on this site between SJWs and spectral MRAs; it is the tilting itself that secures one in one’s saddle.****

Attend to your own feelings as you are drafting a post. If it feels good to be telling that other person how Wrong he is, perhaps what you're really doing is trying to tell yourself that you're all Right. You are all right. After all, you care about people. Let that show in how you phrase your post.

*yes, I wanted both of those “simply”s in that sentence.

**and some impossible

***and literary; do please admire my erudite literary references!

****this too is hell, nor am I out of it

Oh, and by the way, I opt in for all deserved vituperation.

 

[Zack]

I don't get why "SJW" is a CFC clique, but "MRA" (if we're really going to use those loaded terms) apparently isn't. (Of course, I don't get why people with like-minded views are automatically a clique.)

 

[Gori the Grey]

Zack, please note that every time I used the word "Clique" I placed it in scare-quotes: so-called clique.

(Though there is another answer to your question that I think careful reading might yield)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, there's a lot of assumption here that the clique would be something organized, like the mafia, where attacks are planned out and dogpiles executed.

It's an informal thing that, those who are a part of that certain clique (gasp, there might be more than one!) might not even realize they are a part of it. Generally one poster (there are no leaders since it isn't organized) will make a generally thought out post as a response a topic. The other clique members, with their work done for them, can simply agree with that poster and instead post something funny, or snarky, or sometimes even something mean because the onus of making a position has been lifted by the previous poster.

This seems to happen a lot, and the only solution I can encourage is to only post if you have something to truly contribute, or make your own fleshed out post even if it is repeating what someone else said. Support can be nice, but I don't think most posters here require it to continue their discussion with those who disagree with them.

Counterpoint...I enjoy the funny, maybe snarky (and secretly maybe even the mean) posts...even when I agree with the 'other side'...and even when I am the other side.

I frequently talk about lurkers...and let's face it, if threads on this forum consisted of just 'here is my well thought out, clearly articulated, and somewhat dry statement of my position, with appropriate references linked', followed by an equally well formed rebuttal, then we would have no lurkers. In fact even we wouldn't be here.

I don't think any regular poster is operating under the belief that this is a place to post their opinion and grab a bunny and a rainbow on their way out. Internet forums are rough and tumble places. There are standards, and mods to maintain the standards, but if there is a 'clique' that 'dogpiles' me here I will handle it the same way I would in the real world...identify a leader and give as good as I get...or better if I'm able.

 

[Oruc]

He thinks of himself as a “class traitor,” (a traitor to his “class” of men; ditto for white and straight, presumably). Now, as I read the tone of that revelation, he prides himself on his “class traitor” status.

Wait is that what he meant? I thought he must be part of a rich family so being communist would be a betrayal. In a similar fashion to myself, I should be a communist rather than a reactionary considering my class.

 

[Zack]

Zack, please note that every time I used the word "Clique" I placed it in scare-quotes: so-called clique.

(Though there is another answer to your question that I think careful reading might yield)

I wasn't necessarily addressing you specifically, I was also referencing Phrossack's manifesto.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I enjoy the funny, maybe snarky . . . posts

I too have learned, through my participation on this site, that I have a taste for snark. Though snark is as mean as I want to see people get.

Wait is that what he meant? I thought he must be part of a rich family so being communist would be a betrayal. In a similar fashion to myself, I should be a communist rather than a reactionary considering my class.

I'm sure the person in question believes that about himself too, but he used the concept metaphorically for gender concerns in either "california train bias" or "hissy fit"

I wasn't necessarily addressing you specifically, I was also referencing Phrossack's manifesto.

Oh, my bad.

 

[Borachio]

Retreat of Embittered Menlancholia

wut?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I too have learned, through my participation on this site, that I have a taste for snark. Though snark is as mean as I want to see people get.

I must admit to having laughed at an unhealthy amount of mean...but I try very hard to account for the durability of the target. For example I have laughed at lots of mean things said directly to me, and quite a few mean things said to people who I am confident are very thick skinned, and some mean things said to people who I assess as 'if you can't take it you have a problem because you dish your share'.

On the other hand, I have removed posts that were interpreted as supporting something that was deemed mean by the person targeted, based on being fairly certain that person plays by a softer set of rules and merits being allowed to do so.

 

[Gori the Grey]

wut?

Honestly? You're going to make me dig up the references for that one? Hrrumph.

 

[Borachio]

Nono. Don't let me put you to any trouble. I'm content to puzzle over it all on my own.

R.E.M.

Hmm.

There's that book by Robert Burton, of course. The most famous unread book of all time: Anatomy of Melancholy.

I tried reading it myself, and quickly found out why.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, this was the one place in the essay I wasn't playing with acronyms.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If you think there is a conspiracy around here that is most likely your brain telling you that you just spend too much time around. Get some real life....

 

[choxorn]

Nono. Don't let me put you to any trouble. I'm content to puzzle over it all on my own.

R.E.M.

Hmm.

There's that book by Robert Burton, of course. The most famous unread book of all time: Anatomy of Melancholy.

I tried reading it myself, and quickly found out why.

lolwut

 

[gay_Aleks]

There seems to be a clique designed to look for The Clique.

 

[Borachio]

lolwut

Why? Have you read it?

 

[choxorn]

Your post? Yeah, and it looks like a stream of nonsense to me, hence my response.

 

[Borachio]

No, I meant have you read the Anatomy of Melacholy.

I can assure you that, unusually, my post wasn't nonsense at all. Despite appearances. I'm just searching around for what Mr Grey can mean, that's all.

 

[choxorn]

What's the Anatomy of Melancholy?