Confessions of a Neckbeard

[jordan179]

Looking at this post by inverarity at http://inverarity.livejournal.com/136523.html?view=comments I think the real point of their argument is Looking at the other blog, I think the whole point of their argument is to say

Comments

[metaphorsbwithu]

You can't have a rational discussion with an ideologue.

I'd just point out to him/her/them that there is certainly some degree of racism, bigotry,and prejudice across the global spectrum but that they are subjective absolutists who simply want to control ideas and behavior, that they are limited in the worldview, have a huge problem with basic human nature, are doing no good for humanity, and are unfortunately simply adding a new layer of color with their own brand of rasism.

[jordan179]

But see, the Institutional Racism theorists have a clever way of avoiding this reality -- and many people don't spot the flaw.

The evasion works by defining "racism" and "sexism" as institutional rather than individual. Racism supports the white and sexism the male institutional power structure. Thus, anti-white "racism" and anti-male "sexism" become impossible, by DEFINITION.

The flaw is that this is argument by pure tautology, and from bad premises. The first false assumption is that there is a monolithic power structure, based primarily on race and sex (in reality there are numerous power structures, and which one is relevant to you in a given situation depends on that particular situation). The second false assumption is that this power structure must necessarily be racist and sexist. The third false assumption is that the race being favored must by white and the sex being favored male

[metaphorsbwithu]

Oh, no. I've got that part about "institutionalized racism."

It's part of Black Liberation Theology and those "politics of racism" profesors at Columbia and Harvard Obama and the left espouse.

This is why you can't "discuss" any subject rationally with the ideologue.

You simply have to point out you understand their frustration and lack of self-esteem and need to lash out at the people they assign their blame on.

Ideology and the accompanying need to feel superior knows no boounds. Look at Sudan/Darfur where Arab Muslims have been exterminating black Christians and black Muslims for decades.

You can't argue logic and facts, you just have to let them know you understand their feelings of inadequacy and helplessless, their need to be part of a movement or "congregation", their need to cling to their religious dogma and blame everyone but themselves for their failure, amd their naivete at being exploited by race-baiters.

You can't be defensive. You just have to get in their heads with truth and then slip away.

[expanding_x_man]

This leads to a situation where, essentially, the white males are patting the non-whites and females on the head for merely expressing opinions, even illogical and unsupported ones, with the subtext "isn't it amazing that people like this can speak?"Yes! I find this very irritating, as a non-white person. I find it condescending and racist actually, as you also note, and racist in the true sense that the person speaking does not see ME or the personhood, the individuality (of course, these leftists don't believe in that) of any so-called "POC" they are speaking to. It is really maddening

[expanding_x_man]

I don't necessarily recommend always arguing with these idiots (and their view is idiotic, regardless of their IQs) -- but now and again, one is called upon to do it

[polaris93]

The left is becoming fairly monolithic, at least among certain types of people. And, unfortunately, those are educated people more or less. With universities and the other schools leaning strongly toward this nonsense, it is becoming the status quo. I know Melanie Phillips talks about this, how the people who are the most out of touch with reality (I think that these left wing ideas about race are fantasy based and not reality based) are the ones who are, alas, the most educated (the elites). Everyone else still has some semblance of sense. I see what she means. Not good.

The academic Left live in a culture that protects them from everything that might make them suspect their beliefs are wrong and their lives wasted. They are, in short, protected from the consequences of their beliefs and actions; if they weren't, they'd eventually discard those beliefs for something that worked better. The Ivory-Tower community has a lot to answer for.

[jordan179]

I am honored by your praise. Thank you :)

[cutelildrow]

It is rather nauseating. I can't stand these kinds of men and find them manipulative and passive-aggressive and WEAK yet somehow, often oddly domineering in a way that is dishonest and well, ah, icky.

You know, I've noticed this trend for men to take this passive aggressive, manipulative and weak stance... and as strange as it may be for me to say, they become more bitchy this way. Passive-aggressiveness, manipulative, gossipy, weak and emotionally guilt-hostage-taking tactics are traditionally the domain of villainous women. Thus, one could describe the Acceptable Leftist Male as visibly effeminate and emasculated to a degree (which... explains a lot of the misogyny, when one really takes time to think about it.)

And yes, those kinds of men I find icky and disgusting, outright contemptible.

ETA: Note that most the men who behave this way are also violently hostile towards those who bear arms, regardless of gender, and are against self defense. Think they're co-related?

[jordan179]

And notice the hostility of passive-aggressive men to any man who dares stand up openly for anything. It's directly analagous to the hatred of pacifists for those who bravely defend themselves from aggressors, which usually far outmatches any animosity the pacifists may have for the aggressors themselves.

See "The Malignity of 'Nonviolence'"

http://jordan179.livejournal.com/54959.html

[jordan179]

ETA: Note that most the men who behave this way are also violently hostile towards those who bear arms, regardless of gender, and are against self defense. Think they're co-related?

(*nods*) A normal reaction to seeing someone else stand up bravely where one oneself backed down is shame, because one failed to meet the test of courage that someone else passed. This happens to all but the bravest from time to time, and maybe even to them.

A healthy reaction to this is to vow to improve one's own courage and determination. A sick reaction to this is to adopt the philosophy that courage is bad, or that "true" courage consists of not standing up bravely, and from there it is just one short step to condemning those who are actually brave.

[expanding_x_man]

ETA: Note that most the men who behave this way are also violently hostile towards those who bear arms, regardless of gender, and are against self defense. Think they're co-related?

Yes.

Reminds me of an ex-roommate who was very left wing and against the military to an extreme and even - against self-defense. I do think these attitudes are co-related. He was domineering but in a way that was passive-aggressive. I do think he had a lot of problems and a sort of violence that simmered beneath the surface, but he could not admit to it even to himself I think. Would rather be around a "macho" type any day.

[headnoises]

It kind of makes sense-- it's the male response to the trend of "liberated" women acting like the worst kind of men, isn't it? (Sleeping around at the drop of a hat, being aggressive and rude, cursing like it's punctuation.)

For some reason, they become the archetypal WORST of the other sex.

[cutelildrow]

...which makes me wonder, why aim to be the archtypical worst sort of guy tropes? Unless that's the sort of behavior they REALLY admire and think is ideal?

[headnoises]

On absolutely zero evidence, I'd guess that it's a response to pain. Bad examples of the sex hurt them and that made an impact, forming their view of the whole sex, so when they try to be like "them," their perspective is warped.
Largely based on knowing that being hurt makes a bigger impact than being helped, and my belief that those who've been formed in the complementary format of the dual sexes aren't likely to try to BECOME their own complement.

[x_eleven]

Yes! I find this very irritating, as a non-white person. I find it condescending and racist actually, as you also note, and racist in the true sense that the person speaking does not see ME or the personhood, the individuality (of course, these leftists don't believe in that) of any so-called "POC" they are speaking to. It is really maddening.

You forgot to mention what happens to every PoC who dares to disagree with the liberal agenda: Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Allen Keys, Allen West, for example. (Or women such as Sarah Palin, or even Hillary Clinton.)

They become fair targets for the nastiest of racial (and sexual) stereotyping, don't they?