Post 23 -- Hitchens and the "Personal is Political"

I am a proud owner of the Quotable Hitchens, a great book of impressively produced quotes by Hitchens throughout his career. In the modern day efforts of reactionary Social Justice Warriors, from GamerGate, to Dr. Taylor's "offensive and ostracizing" shit, to "metalheads are what's wrong with metal", the term "personal is political" is thrown around as easily as the term "misogyny".

Before I get into the Hitchens' quotes, something I will do leading up to his death day, I want to give a solid example of how "the personal is political" is about feelings and devoid of reason. Faggot. That word is used extensively. Originally used to describe a tightly bound bundle of sticks (sometimes for the purpose of fire building), the stick/dick rhyme and stick-on-stick imagery was applied to homosexual men. Well, almost exclusively in American; but in the United Kingdom, the term fag was derived more to the burning element of the original description and applied to cigarettes. Faggot is currently viewed as a derogatory word against homosexuals, and some argue that the flippant use of it in online spaces and in school yards between men only reinforce the negative and denigrating connotation of the word.

This, however, shows how some do not recognize how words and language evolve. Otherwise meaningless words can be changed into hurtful ones while intentionally harmful words can be co-opted and "taken back" into positive ones. Ratchet, the helpful tool, is also used as a slur against "ghetto women" who believe they are "every man's eye candy", and is applied to any woman who acts in a similar manner. On the other side, the word queer was used as a disparaging term against homosexuals of both genders, but was re-purposed by the LGBTQ community as a word that, to them, carry no harm. Words and their meanings are somewhat flexible--we won't be swapping the meaning of verbs any time soon, but certain nouns can take on or lose given meanings and, in some cases, turned into verbs themselves.

Back to faggot, though. It is a favourite word of those in online spaces, particularly image boards (e.g., 8chan). The usage there has nothing to do with sexual orientation but to do with ones usefulness to the conversation. Acting in a meaningless way, not thinking for one's self, or intentionally attempting to block or disrupt a conversation will result in being called a faggot. Here's Louis C.K.'s take on the word:

Again, in the context that Louis C.K. is talking about, faggot has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual orientation. It is a word used to point out a person who is acting in a weak, pedantic, whiny, cowardly, or any otherwise annoying manner--again, nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Enter SJWs: because there are homosexuals who feel the word faggot is a slur against them, they make that personal element political. This action directly leads to attempts to censor the use of the word in nearly every context. We are seeing that in the recent issue regarding metal (genre of music): The Problem With Heavy Metal Is Metalheads: Stop Calling Everyone A Faggot.

Here are Hitchens's thoughts on the "personal is political".

"The idea that 'the personal is political'--and idea that emerged in an era of post-1960s depoliticization--has come to mean that personal identity or preference is a sufficient political commitment." - "Missionary Positions", Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1991

"In the meanwhile, of course, the political has conversely become personalized with the result that public affairs are dominated by celebrity-style posturing." - "Radical Pique, Vanity Fair, February 1994

"I remember very well the first time I heard the saying 'The Personal is Political'. It began as a sort of reaction to the defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they felt, not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its subgroups and 'specificities'." - Letters to a Young Contrarian, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 112-113

"From now on, it would be enough to be a member of a sex of gender, or epidermal subdivision, or even erotic 'preference', to qualify as a revolutionary. In order to begin a speech or to ask a question from the floor, all that would be necessary by way of preface would be the words: 'Speaking as a ...' Then could follow any self-loving description." Hitch-22, (New York: Twelve, 2010), 121

(Quotes taken from The Quotable Hitchens (Cambridge, MA: Windsor Mann, 2011))

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 22 -- In dealings with "Social Justice Warriors"

In my previous post, I wrote a rapid reply to the Ra Men Podcast and Mr. James Croft of St. Louis Ethical Society. The particular podcast can be found here. In brief, Aron and Mark spoke with four members of the Ferguson community on the issues surrounding the murder of Mr. Michael Brown and grand jury's choice not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. Most of the discussion was focused on variations of "oppression" suffered by only blacks (ignoring the 28% white population in Ferguson) at the hands of only whites. There were no solutions offered by the two individuals who identified themselves as "community leaders".

I pointed this out in a reply to the video and again to Mr. Croft on Twitter. I like to believe I take a Stoic's approach when entering online discussions as an even temperament lends itself far more to discussion than trolling/flaming. In my responses specific to Mr. Croft, I focused on his rhetoric and ideas--those of "privilege" and of "white privilege". I am not someone who buys into the Social Privilege Theory. Rather, I feel it to be meaningless ravings done mostly by the people who fall into the highest tiers of privilege. Moreover, it is a pathetic escape tactic by the unintelligent, whereby they need only claim that one's "privilege" prevents them from understanding. Yes, because being a white man means I completely lack empathy and sympathy.

The Social Privilege Theory is frequently employed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). Now, within the SJW community it comes across as a powerful social factor, and the ability to explain privilege is considered enough to cause tectonic shifts in social policy. Outside of the SJW cult hall, calling out someone's privilege is an act of shaming in their eyes. Shaming, of course, is considered one of the pillars of bullying, along with threats, coercion, and force. For the SJW perspective, shaming is a fair play simply because one with privilege engages in invisible or unconscious shaming of those with less privilege. This is patently ridiculous on several levels.

Privilege does not exist in the terms held by these SJWs, who view it as a society wide issue. Certain individuals posses preferences, opinions, or beliefs that may view others as below or above them. That, however, does not mean everyone with a superficial similarity (e.g., skin colour, gender) also posses that identical preferences, opinions, or beliefs. The one privilege that does exist is wealth or financial privilege. Ironically (or not), the loudest voices claiming the damage caused by "white, heterosexual, cis-male privilege" come from those of wealth (e.g., Ms. Quinn, Ms. Sarkeesian, Mr. Mcintosh, Mr. Lifshitz, Mrs. Wu).

Now, I decided to write this little post because of my exchange with Mr. Croft. Here's the first part:

Mr. Croft appears to have been generous with his time and stated he both read and replied to my posting. This looked to be promising for me to have some discussion with his views contrasted with mine. Unfortunately, it was not to be the case. I immediately went to my page and see if there were any comments waiting moderation and to check my settings.

As shown here, my comments are open to anyone and never require moderation. I like discussion and feel that I can learn from being wrong. It came across as strange to me that the comment was lost. I originally gave Mr. Croft the benefit of doubt, and continued to ask for a response. At first the conversation came across as friendly:

I did not want to dismiss Mr. Croft. I continued to press for the reply in a friendly and open matter.

Here I remain open to discussion. I did not feel I targeted Mr. Croft on a personal level. Rather, that I focused on words he said, in context, and why his approach was not the best for improving the situation in Ferguson. I believe between the YouTube post and Post 21, I used about 400 words specifically to Mr. Croft, while the rest were either dedicated towards another individual, to the situation, or the my solutions. Again, I was seeking conversation on the matter and in a stoic manner; I argue the central points of people's arguments and avoid falling to weak ad hominem attacks.

The conclusion. I did not edit my post to cleanse it of any personal attacks. My post is how it was when Mr. Croft claimed to have read it. Still, I attempted to open to Mr. Croft for discussion. Then he reminded me of something: SJWs and their ilk are ideologues. So steeped in their rhetoric they are unable to discern the difference between criticism of ideas and criticism of their person. They shout aloud that you've "offended" (i.e., "denigrate", "disparage") them not as a means to correct the direction of the conversation by as a tactic to derail it entirely. There are no winners here and nothing for either parties to learn when this happens. It is an intellectually cowardly and dishonest act.

SJWs are trouble. We know this from #GamerGate, from Occupy Wall Street, and from the new Puritan policies coming into effect on college campuses. No person has a right to not be offended. It is the height of arrogance to think one particular group or person deserves special treatment or protection from such speech. Yet, SJWs forge ahead, drawing deeper and deeper lines between groups, dividing people up in unnecessary ways. When challenged, they cry foul because they were offended, and proceed to walk away in a false victory.

I have no doubt that Mr. Croft is an intelligent and passionate man. However, these actions I am seeing him engage are intellectually cowardly. If Mr. Croft does reply to this or Post 21, or if Blogger finds the lost post (if there was a post lose to begin with), I will happily redact and apologize for this paragraph. Until that time, however, I am left with another encounter with a person who claims offense at the mere criticism of his ideas in context. No rebuttal, no solutions.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 21 -- To the Ra Men Podcast

This is a follow up response to my Twitter conversation with the Ra Men Podcast, Aron Ra, and James Croft.

Episode 11 of the Ra Men Podcast featured a different format: rather than the usual single guest interviewed by Aron, Mark, and/or Lilandra, Episode 11 included several members in a panel-style discussion on the recent happenings in Ferguson, MO. The podcast stayed within its normal hour long time, which likely limited the amount of in-depth discussion on particular issues in Ferguson. My qualm is not with format or the time limit, but instead with the rhetoric being stated by some of the guests.

Here's my statement I placed on the video comments:

 

The statement by Mr. Croft that "everyone else's experience is not the exactly the same as yours" being equated to a justification for the "indiscriminate slaughter" of a given minority was laughable. Vapid statements like these do nothing to work towards resolving the problems we are seeing in police forces around the United States. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric which has its genesis in the weak "social privilege" theory--a theory which is devoid of action.

I'm miffed about this episode. It is an important topic, but it was terribly mishandled. Aron, who usually demands clear, empirical evidence, bows to people who fall outside his "white privilege" (i.e., people who are higher up on the "progressive stack") and allows them to rail off anecdotal evidence unchallenged. Mrs. Crutchfield said her goal was to "fan the flames". Has she not considered that the "flames being fanned" might be detrimental to fixing this problem? In all of this, Mrs. Crutchfield came across as the most overtly racist with her generalized statements about white people. She comes across as lacking introspection and self awareness.

Let us employ Occam's Razor by asking which is more likely: (a) police officers are inherently racist, which is why they are more vicious towards blacks or other minorities, or (b) police officers are grossly under trained and lack interpersonal skills when it comes to conflict resolution, leading to excessive use of force at times. Both options are systemic problems and both can be corrected.

Thanks for discussing this; however, the quality of this particular episode was by far the worst thus far in terms in challenging material and insightful discussion.

Harsh rhetoric from myself, too. My goal with the above statement was to focus in on and dismantle the belief that righteous anger is a justified emotion to be held the the on-the-ground leaders. It cannot be stated enthusiastically enough: leaders must act with reason and purpose, not with anger or indignation. Emotions are fine at driving a person, but they must be left out of the decision making process. This was clearly evidenced in Mrs. Crutchfield's willingness to "fan the flames". Ferguson deserves leaders, not cheer teams.

When there is a lack of critical analysis on the leaders of any movement, leaders are left with a carte blanche for their messages and actions. Mrs. Crutchfield, who admitted she was on the ground daily in Ferguson, is doing a disservice to her community by allowing her anger with the situation to impair her judgement and also by allowing the personal to become political. In the podcast, Mrs. Crutchfield makes the flippant statement that she is afraid of white police officers pulling her over while driving. This does not equate racism in the police force; rather, that only shows one woman's (mostly unjustified) fear.

Mr. Croft also factors into this. He attempts to play the "white privilege" game, whereby he engages in the mental gymnastics of condemning whites (seems rather racist, to me) while disassociating himself from that group. The only thing he didn't do was whip himself. The "privilege" game is wasteful and absolutely ineffective simply because it makes the personal political. Why is that bad? It is a terrible idea because the call for change that comes from the personal being political will only be accepted if it precisely matches what the personal desires were in the first place. The best example of this is abortion rights for women: one side argued it was up to the individual to decide for herself while the other side state their god would be angered and thus that made them uncomfortable. Clear as mud!

Now, here are some reasons why anger is only a destructive force in Ferguson, and I'll do my best to not bring too much of the Stoics mindset into this. Allowing anger in justifies the destruction and violence we've seen so far. Moreover, that same anger propels people into accepting they are oppressed by tapping into their anger. A group of people who feel oppressed will fight back. It is a vicious cycle. The damage caused is extensive, of course. The price of business is extremely high when there is a reasonable chance for riots. Business insurance goes up, making the cost of running a business in Ferguson even more expensive. The surrounding land value drops due to the poor business prospects, which effectively drives out individuals and families who view their homes as investments. Fewer homeowners in Ferguson leads to a smaller tax collection by the city, which directly impacts the city's ability to finance basic infrastructure. As city programs grind to a halt, the city becomes even less desirable to remain in, ultimately driving out more people and acts to turn new comers away. This cycle continues until the city is forced to seek alternatives to make up the difference in operating budget. It cannot look to increasing property taxes in the city as the city has high unemployment, nor can it increase business taxes and fees (which furthers the difficulty for businesses).

Now, that is a grim picture I've illustrated. And I've done it in a way that is entirely devoid of a particular racial group. In other words, it can happen anywhere and to anyone. But this is the moment where we see the opportunity to change matters in Ferguson. We know the city has decided to use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue. As such, a memo goes out to local police ordering them to be hypersensitive (no proof of this, of course, but it is a reasonable assumption) to all traffic violations. Political change on this point reshapes the relationship between the community and law enforcement; rather than threatening layoffs to police due to an impending lack of funding if those tickets aren't issued, police will be encouraged to work on building rapport in the community--to view the community as people rather than potential government revenue.

Again, I've laid this out without mentioning of race. Does a black man in Ferguson not have a job because he is black? Absolutely not. A black man in Ferguson doesn't have a job because there are not enough jobs in Ferguson. Understand that Ferguson is 67% black. For black men, 17.8% are unemployed. 28% of the black population lives under the poverty line. The opportunities to escape are limited by the lack of wealth, not because of people being a given race. Dedicating substantial financial efforts to build the economy of Ferguson, bringing jobs to the young men of Ferguson, will bring greater community peace. Why only young men? Giving those men purpose keeps them off of the streets, away from drugs, out of fights (or worse escalation), and focused on improving their chances and their families chances. More importantly, however, is they become role models for other young black men in the area.

Much of this might seem vapid, but I argue that is because of the inherent bias being brought in. I am not black. I am not American, either (although I do live in the United States now). My history is different. That does not mean I cannot bring reasonable solutions to the table, though. The greatest moral failing with the protesters' side of the Ferguson situation is their ridiculous attitudes on "privilege", which creates enemies out of allies and silences good ideas because of someone's skin colour. After all, if the fight is about racial equality (not tolerance), better treatment by (white) police of (black) citizens, then anyone's idea which addresses these problems and attempts to provide solutions ought to be considered.

One last point before closing: the problem within the police is separate to the problems in Ferguson (i.e., low employment, high poverty, no social mobility). Following Michael Brown's death, those two problems intersected at their most volatile. The police have many problems that I will not mention here, but will at some point. This purpose of this post was to lay out two simple facts: Ferguson has significant governmental and political problems which hurts the economy, and thus social mobility (i.e., "hope") and that relying on racist rhetoric (e.g., "white police officers are causing this") pushes away those who would otherwise be sympathetic to assisting in political change.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 20 -- Farewell to Jim... for now.

Internet Aristocrat's "final response to #GamerGate".

TL;DR: Jim can kill Internet Aristocrat, but he cannot kill his popularity. He spoke to you in his videos, which is what made him unique. He lost the hobby he loved to expectation. When he comes back, as Internet Aristocrat or another persona, he will be back because he has found again his love for his hobby.

Many notable people have voiced their responses to Internet Aristocrat's final statement to #GamerGate. I've listened to it a couple of times, reviewed the responses to him, and have drawn my own conclusions. Let's start on a couple important points about Jim.

Jim likes to make videos. He considers it a hobby. On at least one earlier "lazy stream", Jim stated that he had several previous YouTube accounts that he made videos with, but later deleted, only to go on to make other accounts. Jim's Internet Aristocrat persona was merely his latest. I never followed Jim on any of his previous accounts, but I did come across his account after his first video on gangstalking. More on him as a person later, but I wanted to layout Jim's pattern of behavior thus far.

Jim's Internet Aristocrat persona had its big jump following his series called the "Hugbox Chronicles". In these videos, posted 10 months before the "Gamers are Over" articles, Jim was already critical of the hugbox mentality and corruption among games journalists. In his "Mighty Number Nope" article, Jim lambastes games journalists and the social justice warrior movement for allowing blatant nepotism to take place. While most of us understand that nepotism is a poor business practice, many of us also understand that it--like many, many other human behaviors--is impossible to entirely stamp out. For me, this was the first instance of seeing Jim's adherence to a purest mindset. Nay I say, evidence that he too is an ideologue.

There's really not much to what Jim said in his final response. First, he recognizes his #GamerGate videos, particularly the first of the series titled Five Guys, brought him much of his fame. We all remember how ruthless he was towards the people who had an obligation to be ethical--not to the moral shortcomings of the woman involved. Second, Jim criticized the movement for allowing pro-#GamerGate people to make money off of videos and articles related to #GamerGate. Third, he opines that the weakening of #GamerGate is due to too many moderates and people unwilling to just stay in flat out attack mode. Fourth, he states his intentions to keep his accounts down and to avoid becoming popular again in the future.

Sargon of Akkad's response was as expected: a more moderate position that challenges Jim in two areas: fanaticism (although, Sargon never uses that word) and capitalism. Contrasting what Sargon said with what Jim said helps clarify what Jim's position really is: he wants rabid, Adderall focused, hate driven, anarchists to not just "attack" but to obliterate. Anything that can possibly take away from such hyper focused destruction will snowball and dismantle the entire swarm. Jim blames monetization because it takes away from the righteousness of the crusade. Moreover, his targeting of the moderates can be viewed as the softening of the extremes, which results in diminished vitriolic pressure. It is almost as if he condones any tactic that it takes to bring down the corruption; in other words, if it can't be persuaded to change, then it must be purged, something Sargon points out in his response.

Jim has no desire to be popular. He knew he was the ultimate front man. He was interviewed on a live radio program early in #GamerGate and admitted he "lost his spaghetti." He made several videos on #GamerGate that helped clarify his position and the direction of where to attack. His relationship with Jayd3Fox only elevated his stature, as Jayd3 created the boycott goal of the day. Jim hosted several "lazy streams" where he discussed #GamerGate happenings via questions posed on Ask.fm, Twitter, and the Google Hangouts chat. He could pull in over 6,000 viewers to a mid-afternoon Tuesday stream. He was everything he never wanted to be: the front man. As such, this brought expectation on himself. People sought his advice on what to do next, to which he always responded with something along the lines of "keep on the offensive, do not get distracted with anything but the goal". Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for many of the minions. These minions needed it spelled out. They also wanted the next in the Hugbox Chronicles, the next Tumblrisms, the next #GamerGate video.

This brings us to his choice to kill Internet Aristocrat. The pressure was on Jim to lead and create. He was only a man who had a hobby and an opinion. That's all he wanted to be. Some guy on the internet who made videos that made people laugh and think (well, kind of think). The thing about hobbies is that they lose the luster when they start to feel like work. Jim has a job (I believe he works at an architecture firm in Minnesota). His hobby was destroyed by his popularity, and he already knew this was possible, as it had already happened to him.

He wants his hobby back, though, which is why he alluded to coming back with a new account in a couple of months. Which he will, and the internet will be better for it. Why? Jim's style was unique. Unlike many other people who post on YouTube, who give the sense they are talking to a camera, Jim had a way of making it feel like he was talking to you. That's the main reason why his streams were so popular--even though you were never talking to him, it felt like he was talking to you. His popularity from #GamerGate, Tumblrisms, and Hugbox Chronicles will stay with his mind and his voice. The next time he posts a new video, even if it is a 4 hour long love poem for Zoe Quinn, his popularity will return. The internet does not forget.

My final thoughts, and the essential words I would like Jim to read if he ever comes across this: Internet Aristocrat was a fantastic persona, but he was only a persona. Jim is the passionate hobby man behind it. Jim's popularity will not die. For this reason, Jim should resurrect Internet Aristocrat. Not for #GamerGate or for his fans, but because it shows he understands that inevitable outcome of his contribution and impact. He needs to learn to block out the noise of demands, the shitposts, and the nobodies with opinions, simply because they will follow him where ever he ends up. Nevertheless, I raise a glass to Jim as I mourn the loss of Internet Aristocrat. Here's to the next attempt, Jim, and may you take back the hobby you so clearly love.

(Post script: the @internet_arlsocrat Twitter account is not Jim. I think it might be @blackfacekermit.)

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi