I am trying to understand what your anti-Semitic screed has to do with this? Or are you just using that as an example, because you haven't proven yourself to be a big enough bigot yet?
It's part of this weird thing people do sometimes trying to show how cool bigotry is supposed to be. The (
cough!) "whinging" American "self-hating bigot" who purports to be a "brown Jew" because he's taking time out to insult someone else as a "brown buffalo" does not exactly present the most reliable testament we have ever borne witness to.
Notice how lazy the troll job is, by section:
• Antisemitism
• Fallacy
• Ignorance of own arguments
• Trigger fantasy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Lazy fallacy
• Nonsensical make-believe fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Evasion and demand
• Fallacious scold
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Ignorance of own argument
• Fallacious fantasy
• Fallacy
• Purported ignorance defying participation
I think. I might have lost track in that second-half string of
neener-blah-thbpbpt fallacies.
We might notice how at no time during this or any other of his posts does he actually put any real effort into making any real argument. The whole point is that he isn't informed enough to engage the dispute according to what he posts, so, like many who aren't up to the tasks they set before themselves, he simply provokes and waits and responds. We're down to
neo-Nazi conspiracism↑ in nonsensical arguments whose only apparent purposes are the recycling of antisemtic tropes and invoking genocide; it's all about keywording.
The thing about the make-believe stereotype he plays is that he does it so poorly.
Hey, remember that one thread when a dude walks in and says, essentially,
"Duhhhrrrrr ... what's rape culture? I looked it up online but could only find YouTubers telling me how evil feminism is." And we were actually supposed to believe that sleazy bullshit, or, at the very least, take it seriously? At some point, I find myself wondering about the people who can't tell the difference, because at no point did handing that faction anything more substantial have any useful effect, and to the one, as stupid as it sometimes seems, people can certainly dismiss interpretive priority as a matter of politics, but, to the other, the proposition that one apparently cannot find for themselves primary and secondary sources, but only distal quasi-meta-analytical political stylistics undertaken in pursuit of fame, is simply not believable; at some point, if I want to know what's in the U.S. Constitution, I read the Constitution; if I want to know what Judith Butler said, I read what Judith Butler said. My imagination fails: What is this world in which I might turn to a search engine and be unable to find any relevant information more proximal than political opposition?
In this thread we have a wonderful preface in,
"so it comes to this"↑ in boldface, and then a reposted typal screed in the manner of conservative
now-more-than-everism. So it comes to someone reposting an anonymous coward's fulfillment of cyclical station in reciting the same old bullshit we always hear, and I admit that compared to the history of American machismo, this quaking, blubbering, nose-up, head-shaking petulance—
"Well, fine, if it's just so hard to tell the difference between how I like to treat women and being disrespectful, I'll just take it out on women!"—really ought not be funny even in the context of its seeming futility; after all, a #WhatAboutTheMen context would seem to describe ... er ... ah ... y'know ... a problem of its own.
I mean, desperate is as desperate does, but the creepy old stereotype of trying too hard is part of what has changed; we see it as creepy, now, and not some charming loser character essential to a sitcom formula.
Nor is this funny: We have somehow arrived at another finite boundary in prevention advice, that women should not advise each other where danger is afoot.
At the very least, perhaps these tropes might finally be overplayed and out of time; I'm uncertain what the timescale would be, but thinking back to Exosci and the prewar community, we participated in a powerfully transformational period that, like many later societal and human transitions, seems to hinge on the period of historical repetition, breadth of mass media, and saturation of process and idea. Specifically: Old, simplistic religious grifts that might have worked in rural, "Jesusland" communities, conversion appeals aimed to exploit lack of education, and general wolf-shepherd-snakeoilery. Indeed, I sometimes recall a
Simpsons episode (#BABF06, "Faith Off") that assails puerile appeals to invite Jesus into one's heart, part of John 3.16 "loving-God" Christendom, with the deathbed conversion argument. The appeal itself has changed some over the years, but its fault remains the same as it ever was, a failure to guard against subordination of Christ, but it's true that in the early years of the twenty-first century, Christianist promulgation found itself scrambling to reformulate as scrutiny during the rise of e-media proved too broad-scale and demanding to provide reliable results. So it is also true that we can, like many societal and human transitions, look at the late Nineties and Early Century as a transformational period contributing to our decivilizing traditionalist roar; their period of crisis only deepens.
We might recall the Gay Fray was a proxy fight, and thus observe that we started returning, as a society, to arguing more directly about women again as outcomes started becoming apparent, because at least a couple relevant lines emerge for inquiry and discussion: Whereas the Gay Fray included white men among its ostensible winners, the appeal to emotion and some fallacious zero-sum nonsense by which the humanity of woman somehow denigrates men is a much easier sell, in part because there is an existential stake for open traditionalists that is easily accessible for feeling existential. Additionally, the traditionalist scramble for reformulation and reiteration is a powerful lender toward the widespread alienation many who do not otherwise consider themselves traditionalist attempt to describe in explaining antisocial outbursts from the political right, or attempting to justify supremacism, authoritarianism, and dereliction.
The rising pitch of desperation likely describes something more cyclical, but we are within a range American society has witnessed before: Simplistic fallacy will play out over and over, with blind and increasingly vicious reiteration, at such pace that the repetition eventually forces society to eventually acknowledge the facts of fallacy and behavioral vice. If, as such, this is a battle in the War of the Sexes, then we know already how "men", as such, intend to lose. More historically and societally, traditional empowerment claws and screeches and kicks and bites in hopes of doing as much damage as possible on its way down; in the end, the point is to hurt, hurt, hurt as many as possible as much as they can manage before it's over. We've been watching American Christendom reel for decades under the influence of a toxic Christianism; in my lifetime it is possible to draw an arc from through books, music, television, and movies, into the latter-day culture wars posturing Christianist supremacism against selected targets such as homosexuals, working women, unmarried women, women in general, and even skin that isn't pale enough to satisfy other aesthetics. It is not surprising that women are the connection through that arc. And just like white supremacism can appeal to someone who isn't Christianist, so, too, can misogyny appeal to people off the traditional American Christianist arc. Yes, that point always feels strange to remind, but, well, you know how it goes; looking around the room it's like, yeah, cover the base or else someone will make the point.
Still, though, there are people who seem to rely on the market, that one ought to be allowed to denigrate himself with little or no regard for how that affects anyone else, and as irrational as such propositions are for their requisite demand of inherent human rationality, there is always the possibility that this deep-throated, angry, incoherent roar from the Guardians of Rape Culture will actually have some inevitable repulsive effect. I don't know, though; like I said, we won the Gay Fray because the winners included white men.
Meanwhile, I don't have any good advice in certain contexts; this is one of those subjects by which I can spend all day thinking about and working on a post only to expect an effort-free retort from the ostensible other side; I don't know what to tell you, though, about the damage those people do in lieu of having anything to say. At some point it occcurs to wonder, if this is how a person sees other people then perhaps there is a reason they feel so isolated. And of course people whine and equivocate because it really is a multipath dynamic, but therein lies a hook; the personal, inward focus also advises, invites, and instructs others to look into that person as such. As a result, we might know more of what someone thinks about female graduate students than the dimensions of how they comprehend due process. And in such cases it generally turns out to be a somewhat nasty glimpse.
Tevna once reminded that suffering turns one's attention inward; legend says his simple observation changed the course of an empire. Results will vary, naturally, but I do find myself recalling, these days, what the pyrologist said.
