The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not so sure about that. From what I've read, it's been common for racists quite deliberately to try and provoke their less reasonable opponents into stepping up, because experience shows that fear of those elements tends to produce reactionary sentiment.

No doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that no one would have been looking for a reasonable solution if the problem had not become obvious. Until there's a riot somewhere the majority are blithely going along saying 'racism? nahhh.'

 

[aelf]

Firstly, it's a curiously rose-tinted view of the past that sees it as less racist than the present. Go back fifty or a hundred years and the predominance of overtly racist views in popular discourse and public policy was vastly greater than now. Walk around any number of modern cities and you'll see people of all colours and creeds working and living together in what is, though still a long way from the ideal, a remarkably changed social climate with regards to racial attitudes.

Not fifty or a hundred years. I'm talking about a few decades at most. Might it be that racism has actually increased since then? If you take the whole world into account, that may well be the case.

Secondly, the only delusion here is that which sees nothing good in the world that doesn't result from the narrow confines of an exclusive and willfully hostile ideology. I've given clear, concrete examples of how great change has been achieved by those who rejected the ends-justify-the-means approach, not merely because they saw it as immoral in itself, but also because they realised how ineffectual it is in the final reckoning. In comparison, the achievements of the relentlessly oppositional, unreasonable approach you advocate have been inconsequential at best, and, at worst, profoundly negative.

So you deny that it took violence to end slavery in some places? That is either insane or simply liberal propaganda in action.

There's nothing principled about deliberately courting controversy for its own sake, or for advocating immorality in the fight against immorality. And there's nothing weak about holding firm to a respect for humanity - all humanity - and the pursuit of change through peaceful and open discussion. You act as if drawing anti-racism into an ideological niche, garnished with displays of superficially tough language, is somehow going to produce meaningful change. There's no evidence that this is true, and plenty to the contrary.

Nobody said that controversy ought to be courted for its own sake. However, polite intellectual debate is overrated as an agent of change in the real world. Gandhi, MLK and Mandela certainly did not restrict themselves to polite debate. They were very disruptive towards the oppressors - practically rude, even.

Liberalism has achieved much. But it has not brought about nearly everything that it set out to achieve. Institutional racism remains and is implicitly supported by liberal elements. Inequality and oppression remain perennial issues and there is no end in sight to the domination of society by moneyed interests, who have effectively side-stepped or even controlled debate. It seems clear that the liberal ideal of the public sphere is as mythical as any of the most plausible utopias you can imagine.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Firstly, it's a curiously rose-tinted view of the past that sees it as less racist than the present. Go back fifty or a hundred years and the predominance of overtly racist views in popular discourse and public policy was vastly greater than now.

This reminds me of the kinds of characters and themes found in children's books. I've been going through some boxes of things from my house (they've been in storage for a long time) and just for old time's sake started re-reading one of my Bobbsey Twins books.

And I'm appalled. The way the Bobbsey family's servants are characterized is definitely not palatable by today's standards. I didn't know any better when I was 7 or 8 years old, but now I'm seriously considering dismantling those books and tossing them in the recycling dumpster. I wouldn't even consider trading them in at the used book store, since the attitudes in those books not only toward non-Caucasian people but also females (girls can't do this, a woman had to worry about whether or not she'd get a job as a pianist just because she was wearing pants at the time that the person recommending her for the job first met her) are not in keeping with modern society's sensibilities.

 

[Agent327]

So you deny that it took violence to end slavery in some places? That is either insane or simply liberal propaganda in action.

That's not what he said (as anybody can see since you are quoting), but since you are offering: "it took violence to end slavery in some places". That's a really powerful argument you have there. In fact, you are confirming what Hughes stated, by giving the exception to the rule. Which makes your own conclusion somewhat off the bat.

 

[brennan]

Not fifty or a hundred years. I'm talking about a few decades at most. Might it be that racism has actually increased since then?

That's a reasonable question, but even if the answer is yes, what does it tell us? It would tell me that the Neoliberal economic project since the 80s has actively opposed the most successful movement for social equality in history - socialism and the redistributive and equitable policies it brings - universal education and healthcare for example. In doing so it has served to halt social mobility and then to further reinforce class divides that had perviously been retreating. Groups that have been disproportionately over-represented in the poorer/poorest classes - such as blacks in the US - then become highlighted in the public consciousness as under-achievers. The Average Joe, being a bear of very little brain, takes this as an indication of innate inferiority - a problem that characterises treatment of the poor in almost every society in history, irrespective of colour. Race gets the blame from the one side, Racism from the other, when the real culprit is Capitalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

You can hang the John Browns. The Lincolns get the job done.

"Moderates can bargain all they like, but as soon as they threaten systems of power they get a bullet through their head like anybody else"?

 

[Hygro]

"Moderates can bargain all they like, but as soon as they threaten systems of power they get a bullet through their head like anybody else"?

I lately get this nagging feeling that progressives are effectively friend-zoned in their quest for equality. Like if true social-material-personal freedom is the goal, and that requires capital, progressivism trying to get there is via climbing the friend ladder being a nice guy.

Fortunately friendzone and friend ladder aren't actually things, and being friends and a guy who is nice is actually a plus.

But it's still been bothering me the past couple weeks.

 

[Borachio]

So you deny that it took violence to end slavery in some places? That is either insane or simply liberal propaganda in action.

Are you claiming that slavery would not have ended in some places without violence? Because that position would seem to be a failure of imagination.

In truth, we can't know what would have, or might have, happened if things had been different. I still don't see that the end of slavery "in some places" necessarily required the use of violence.

It may not have ended at the same time as it did. (Indeed it might have ended earlier. Who knows? For, once you change one parameter in an alternate history, what's to stop you changing them all?)

And slavery still exists "in some places", let's not forget. Would you recommend the use of violence to end it in those other places?

 

[Traitorfish]

Slavery didn't end anywhere without violence. It may have been the routine, institutionalised violence of the British imperial government saying "right, enough of this", but that still represents violence. Nowhere on the globe has chattel slavery ever been abolished voluntarily.

 

[luiz]

It really blows my mind that some people still have the nerve to argue that it takes radical politics and violence to achieve social progress, when history shows so consistently that social progress was always achieved to a greater and more consistent extent through negotiation and moderation. In the rare cases where they were achieved through violence there was usually an equally violent backlash against it and large parts of the old order were restored.

Marxists whining that liberal society hasn't fully delivered on its promises is just too ironic to be funny.

 

[luiz]

Slavery didn't end anywhere without violence. It may have been the routine, institutionalised violence of the British imperial government saying "right, enough of this", but it was still ended by violence.

It ended peacefully in Brazil, the biggest of all slave countries. Britain bullied us into ending slave trade (at least officially), but there was nothing they could do to make us ban it altogether. We did so because there was huge, decades-long peaceful movement going on that finally convinced society (or rather the relevant parts of society) that slavery was immoral and holding the country back and had to go. The poet Castro Alves did more to end slavery in Brazil than all of England's frigates.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Moderates can bargain all they like, but as soon as they threaten systems of power they get a bullet through their head like anybody else"?

Sure. How did MLK and Gandhi end? Their walks scoured a lot better than Brown's though.

Not really sure Lincoln, MLK, or Gandhi were moderates though. None of them found the status quo acceptable. They simply weren't radical enough to want to burn the house down instead of fixing it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Gandhi demanded the immediate and unconditional exist of the British from India. I'm not sure that you can describe a man making the same basic demands as Padraig Pearse as "wanting to fix the house" just because he preferred vegetarianism to Mausers.

 

[Senethro]

All these guys were radicals of their times and set plenty moderates to grumbling.

 

[Farm Boy]

Gandhi demanded the immediate and unconditional exist of the British from India. I'm not sure that you can describe a man making the same basic demands as Padraig Pearse as "wanting to fix the house" just because he preferred vegetarianism to Mausers.

Alright, we're working awkwardly across a lot of terms. Would radical/moderate be better replaced by a form of comparison based on how much actors were dedicated to at least attempting to negotiate and engage peacefully with their opponents in an attempt to change their minds?

 

[Traitorfish]

Lincoln consistently refused to negotiate for anything less than the immediate and unconditional surrender of the Confederacy, so: probably not?

 

[aelf]

That's not what he said (as anybody can see since you are quoting), but since you are offering: "it took violence to end slavery in some places". That's a really powerful argument you have there. In fact, you are confirming what Hughes stated, by giving the exception to the rule. Which makes your own conclusion somewhat off the bat.

And, pray tell, what was my conclusion? That we must generally use violence to solve problems?

It really blows my mind that some people still have the nerve to argue that it takes radical politics and violence to achieve social progress, when history shows so consistently that social progress was always achieved to a greater and more consistent extent through negotiation and moderation.

Oh? And surely you are the best and most un-ironic proponent of negotiation and moderation?

Marxists whining that liberal society hasn't fully delivered on its promises is just too ironic to be funny.

Enlighten me on where the irony lies.

 

[Farm Boy]

Lincoln consistently refused to negotiate for anything less than the immediate and unconditional surrender of the Confederacy, so: probably not?

Yea, but in that we are generally interested in him during this century for his quest to end slavery rather than his quest to preserve the federal government, it's easy to gloss over exactly how hard he tried to first prevent the creation of the Confederacy and 2nd, how much he was willing to bend on the slavery issue when it kept popular support in the north. He was not a dream for his contemporary abolitionists. Frederick Douglass wound up trying to mend that rift years after his death, and did a pretty good job of it.

 

[luiz]

Oh? And surely you are the best and most un-ironic proponent of negotiation and moderation?

The best? I wouldn't be so pretentious. But I certainly advocate for negotiation and moderation. I don't want my political opponents killed, deported, jailed, silenced or disenfranchised, which is the radical route. Herbert Marcuse (who seems to have a lot of fanboys among modern internet-dwelling Marxists) textually claimed right-wing views should be suppressed and not tolerated. I say Marcuse's hideous views should be entirely allowed, so that he and his fanboys can be properly ridiculed.

Enlighten me on where the irony lies.

I really have to? All self-described Marxist governments have failed spectacularly in delivering on the overwhelming majority of Marxist promises. No withering away of the government over time, no true democracy, no material abundance above and beyond that of capitalist societies.

Liberalism has a pretty amazing record compared to the Marxist cult.

 

[aelf]

The best? I wouldn't be so pretentious. But I certainly advocate for negotiation and moderation. I don't want my political opponents killed, deported, jailed, silenced or disenfranchised, which is the radical route.

Sorry, but "negotiation and moderation" are not words that would naturally come to mind when reading many of your posts. Case in point:

Liberalism has a pretty amazing record compared to the Marxist cult.

Does this pass the test of a "reasonable and non-oppositional" approach that is being advocated here?

Nobody on this forum is capable of actual physical violence towards each other. And yet there is disagreement about various people's approaches. This should tell you that physical violence is not all that is being debated here. Confrontation and opposition run the gamut of practices, from the physical violence of battle to peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience. What most of them are not are polite and non-oppositional. And they are used even by some of the most celebrated advocates of peace.

I really have to? All self-described Marxist governments have failed spectacularly in delivering on the overwhelming majority of Marxist promises. No withering away of the government over time, no true democracy, no material abundance above and beyond that of capitalist societies.

So would I be correct to call the DPRK a self-described democratic government?