tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5887440039323868659.post1782970627540491115..comments2024-03-28T22:15:25.617-07:00Comments on RAWIllumination.net: Cleveland Okie (Tom Jackson)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07810736442596736041noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5887440039323868659.post-68936490995326194432015-02-01T19:20:48.642-08:002015-02-01T19:20:48.642-08:00Arthur Hlavaty - this is simply a restatement of t...Arthur Hlavaty - this is simply a restatement of that old "sexism is power + prejudice" canard that is regurgitated over and over against as though it were some sort of immutable natural law, except you have said in RAW lingo rather than the usual pseudo-sociological jargon.<br /><br />Those of us who prefer to stick to the old definitions of sexism and racism do in fact realize that there are different contexts at play, and that most men do not constitute an oppressed group. We recognize the "asymmetry of the actual system". We simply think the best way to iron out the asymmetry is to continue the project of trying to end all sexism, rather than increasing sexism towards groups that tend to suffer it less. <br /><br />As for Glenn Greenwald, he is simply restating the old "Being a responsible person is supposed to be tough!" canard. I would say that actually, being subjected to a constant barrage of unfair/bigoted attacks on your person is simply psychologically unhealthy, precisely because such do not contain any genuine criticism (because genuine criticism implies that a person is able to change their behavior and thus confers responsibility and personhood). What is even more psychologically unhealthy is deliberately going out of your way to subject yourself to unfair/ bigoted attacks out of some perverse sense of duty. I do not agree that this sounds like RAW's "Cosmic Shmuck". To me it sounds more like "Cosmic Masochist" with religious overtones. <br /><br />RAW fans (myself included) love to pick out viewpoints of RAW's that make them uncomfortable and say "I think RAW was letting his own reality tunnel get in the way" or something. It must be coincidence(??!??!) that it is only the views those RAW fans do not share that were simply the product of RAW's prejudices and biases etc. I myself couldn't help but detect a few biases in Hlavaty's comment. I notice third circuit activities are described as "manipulative" all though no further elaboration is given. Why exactly are activities of 'science' and 'logic' manipulative? Are they more or less manipulative than trying to convince somebody that being repeatedly insulted and attacked for qualities that are beyond one's control are actually "valuable for keeping one honest or self-reflective"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5887440039323868659.post-32615079330416172592015-01-30T15:16:40.570-08:002015-01-30T15:16:40.570-08:00Nothing a bit of general semantics wouldn't cl...Nothing a bit of general semantics wouldn't clear up in a jiffy. The whole topic seems quite "is of identity" heavy to me. chashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17923105949653410251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5887440039323868659.post-8396979428961470332015-01-30T08:21:23.732-08:002015-01-30T08:21:23.732-08:00Greenwald makes a good point about the kinds of at...Greenwald makes a good point about the kinds of attack: being called a privileged racist vs. rape threats (sometimes with the target's address). A lot of libertarians hate second-circuit politics (a gross, animalistic activity that should be carried out on all fours, as Dr. Leary said). They want to replace it with manipulative third-circuit activities such as science, logic, and bullshit; I know I was that kind. So they create a logical and symmetrical model: women insulting men = men insulting women. The second-circuit types love to point out the asymmetry of the actual system, and I'm afraid they have a point.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09185407812378193683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5887440039323868659.post-23955908702790780602015-01-30T08:09:25.491-08:002015-01-30T08:09:25.491-08:00I think RAW was on target when he criticizes the &...I think RAW was on target when he criticizes the "Beethoven was a rapist and the Ninth Symphony proves it" stuff, but the passage Bobby highlights bothers me, too. It seems to me that in talking about the "Radical Feminists" RAW engaged in the familiar tactic of cherry picking a few useful targets and then claiming that a few people represent the whole. It's the kind of thing he denounced in other contexts. You can make any legitimate social movement sound bad if you focus on a few absurd individuals. Cleveland Okie (Tom Jackson)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07810736442596736041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5887440039323868659.post-6944845706926444682015-01-30T06:37:04.954-08:002015-01-30T06:37:04.954-08:00I really like Glenn Greenwald's take on this, ...I really like Glenn Greenwald's take on this, especially since for him that kind of criticism isn't theoretical, but something he deals with in droves. Great stuff! Agree with the Cosmic Schmuck comparison.<br /><br />I also agree that RAW directed his criticism of some feminists in a mostly reasonable way, but I just got to the part in CT3 where he's advocating for men's rights, as if men were an oppressed minority, and he seems to be protesting too much:<br /><br />"I can only conclude that Americans have suffered so much brainwashing by the Radical Feminists that any man anywhere now has a 'presumption of guilt' instead of the traditional Anglo-American 'presumption of innocence'" RAW, CT3<br /><br />I don't think RAW was sexist, and I think his intent was to evaluate gender politics in a value neutral way, but I just don't relate with his perspective on this.<br /><br />Bobby Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03809136879430277243noreply@blogger.com