Election 2020

[constant escape]

Well I think I'd say that the white supremacism is not the dominant thing, profit still is. Or rather - the white supremacism can still be comfortably accomodated within democracy at this stage.

Yeah it can still be ideologically effective even if its not center stage, I agree.

But the implicit assumption that there is a board of white supremacists is similar to the explicit assumption that there is a board of pedo jewish marxists or whatever. It just functions to conveniently bolster ones narrative of choice. The reality is much more complicated.

 

[sus]

Real insurrection you'd need either a smaller country or some control over military + media. No way 330 million Americans across 4 million square miles give a shit—other than symbolically—that some building in DC is occupied.

 

[constant escape]

I did see someone on one of the channels' coverages carrying a flag with the Star of David. I assumed it could be attributed to any provisional ideological overlap between American Christian ideologies with Zionism, but its just speculation. Don't have any more thorough claims here.

 

[luka]

Right, because what do you do? Looting and vandalism sure isn't gonna win any sympathy.

I agree. That's what I keep saying. They didn't expect to be let in and once they were in they had no idea what to do.

 

[john eden]

Yeah it can still be ideologically effective even if its not center stage, I agree.

But the implicit assumption that there is a board of white supremacists is similar to the explicit assumption that there is a board of pedo jewish marxists or whatever. It just functions to conveniently bolster ones narrative of choice. The reality is much more complicated.

I don't think that has to be an implicit assumption - it depends on whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not. Also people probably understand that you can be an unconscious racist but it is simply not plausible that there are unconscious pedo jewish marxists afaik.

 

[constant escape]

Maybe they're just less intelligent than previous insurrectionary hordes. Lacking certain fish oils in their diets.

 

[IdleRich]

There were apparently some orthodox Jews there. There is a Times of Israel article about it.

American Orthodoxy’s political suicide

Here's how the community sabotaged its own political interests and reached a point when mask-burning and death-threats were somehow acceptable

blogs.timesofisrael.com

Aaaargh, I was just taking the piss out of the kinds of conspiracies that get floated in this point...6

(I doubt there were very many there and am uncomfortable about this becoming A Thing in this discussion)

Yes me too, it was supposed to be a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the kind of things people say here, it was NOT a genuine talking point.

 

[sus]

Yeah it can still be ideologically effective even if its not center stage, I agree.

But the implicit assumption that there is a board of white supremacists is similar to the explicit assumption that there is a board of pedo jewish marxists or whatever. It just functions to conveniently bolster ones narrative of choice. The reality is much more complicated.

Like many extreme political ideas, "modern America is fundamentally white supremacist" stays alive because its ambiguous: it has a weak version, that's arguably true, and a strong version that pisses its political opponents off and makes them talk about it non-stop. See fellow two-step maneuvers "feminism is just about equal opportunity" or "Jews run finance and media" or "the Cathedral determines what is true."

 

[john eden]

Aaaargh, I was just taking the piss out of the kinds of conspiracies that get floated in this point...

Yeah I realised that after I posted, np.

 

[constant escape]

I don't think that has to be an implicit assumption - it depends on whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not. Also people probably understand that you can be an unconscious racist but it is simply not plausible that there are unconscious pedo jewish marxists afaik.

Totally agree there. I just tend to think that opting for the convenient story deprives us all of the chance to really troubleshoot the situation. And the conflation of "system" with "government" is a critical misstep that seems to haunt many people who are otherwise passionate about changing things for the better.

 

[luka]

What's Rich got against the Jews?

 

[constant escape]

Like many extreme political ideas, "modern America is fundamentally white supremacist" stays alive because its ambiguous: it has a weak version, that's arguably true, and a strong version that pisses its political opponents off and makes them talk about it non-stop. See fellow two-step maneuvers "feminism is just about equal opportunity" or "Jews run finance and media" or "the Cathedral determines what is true."

Yeah and I think that ambiguity allows it to fit some array of molds, narrative wise. Rather than it it were a more detailed and robust claim, in which case you'd have to be more discerning about how you integrate it into your worldview.

Plus there is something stagnant about that claim, like it turns away from obvious political progress, disenfranchised humans slowly and painfully becoming enfranchised. Which isn't to say its all done, as has been pointed out by all the comparisons of this crowd of white protestors/rioters with BLM. Thats essentially political, not just social.

Microaggressions, on the other hand, are essentially social, before being political. Just an example. That sort of distinction has seemingly yet to have been made in the wider social justice consciousness, no?

 

[constant escape]

The distinction between social/political scales up into the distinction between system/government.

 

[constant escape]

But because the system is ultra complex and daunting to analyze, we opt for these ambiguous claims, claims that aren't wrong but also get us nowhere.

 

[sus]

Yeah and I think that ambiguity allows it to fit some array of molds, narrative wise. Rather than it it were a more detailed and robust claim, in which case you'd have to be more discerning about how you integrate it into your worldview.

Plus there is something stagnant about that claim, like it turns away from obvious political progress, disenfranchised humans slowly and painfully becoming enfranchised. Which isn't to say its all done, as has been pointed out by all the comparisons of this crowd of white protestors/rioters with BLM. Thats essentially political, not just social.

Microaggressions, on the other hand, are essentially social, before being political. Just an example. That sort of distinction has seemingly yet to have been made in the wider social justice consciousness, no?

You're totally right, it's not detailed, it's not grounded, it's not robust. It gets passed around as a motto but it's unclear what it actually means, what is being described, etc. Sometimes people just use it to mean, "America was founded in slavery, and therefore will never escape a white supremacist foundation," which is fine, but is it doing any work at all, descriptively or prescriptively?

My read is that these things work as Schelling points, they help people with diverse beliefs coordinate around them. (Which, as you say, is why it helps that the indeterminacy is built-in.) And that they're performative—they establish a social identity, and show strong commitment to it.

Hey by the way, if you haven't read Schelling's Strategies of Conflict, it is *the* book on strategy and also one of the best reads in my whole damn life hands down.

 

[sus]

I have a pet theory that all social interaction runs on mixed-motive Schelling games which I'm happy to enumerate if anyone's interested.

 

[sus]

Another note: I don't think rage comes from circumstances. I think rage comes from interpretation. Lots of people suffer. It's the narrative and the scapegoat that enrages folks, be they the Capitol protesters or anyone else. For better and worse.

 

[constant escape]

Don't know anything about Schelling, but that puts him on the map for me. And yeah I'd love a list.

 

[constant escape]

Another note: I don't think rage comes from circumstances. I think rage comes from interpretation. Lots of people suffer. It's the narrative and the scapegoat that enrages folks, be they the Capitol protesters or anyone else. For better and worse.

I had a thought yesterday about suffering and class, and I think much of it boils down to this: If you're not fending off death, you're fending off depression. The former being the more material, but the latter can amount to living in an undead manner.

I'd say one way to elaborate your theory here is to speculate about how a conventionally rage-inducing set of circumstances can be spun, to be interpreted in different ways.

Within a capitalist culture, I'd say much of the rage is unnecessary and beyond circumstances, as you say, because of how one set of circumstances can be interpreted in relation to another set.

In this case, say my material circumstances are perfectly accommodating, materially, and that my suffering is more against depression than death. Odds are, if I attribute my suffering to my circumstances, its because my circumstances pale in comparison to even more accommodating circumstances.

And the interpretation of equivalent material circumstances can vary based on your ideological climate. What if you're in a more dharmically defined culture, perhaps one that conflates contentless with material ownership to less of a degree?

 

[version]

it was supposed to be a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the kind of things people say here, it was NOT a genuine talking point.

I dunno why you're having such a hard time believing the possibility that the police told people not to come into work on the day of a massive protest.