I think this is maybe the best elucidation of the “inegalitarian” perspective and some of your clearest, most compelling work. Excellent article that I intend to share.
The 1940s Progressives were down playing the atrocities of the Nazi Party. Only through modern press outsized control have they been able to obscure that truth.
This is a great piece. I discussed the mentality that leads to such outbursts here. If you’re someone with too much empathy for their own good and are constantly worries that Bad People will do Bad Things to your pet victims (even when they deserve it, because you encouraged them to “advocate” eg act in an antisocial manner), you’re going to get Brie Brie.
LOL, this would be perfect for a piece on ‘bad faith reasoning.’ Inegalitarians also deny violent atrocities. Denying atrocities has zero to do with egalitarianism, and everything to do with partisanship. What also makes this bad faith is that there are no egalitarians who deny that members of any group can commit crimes or act immorally. You’ve abandoned rationality altogether in this argument. What makes someone do that?
One of the (many) reasons you are wrong in your assertion of bad-faith reasoning on Brian's part here is that the people doing the atrocity-denying here are not died-in-the-wool religious Hamas true believers, they are western woke radicals, claiming to wear proper liberal clothing, who in most other liberal/woke contexts would decry men using sexual violence against women, and would shout that "a woman has the right to be believed".
Your ridiculous assertion that "there are no egalitarians who deny that members of any group can commit crimes or act immorally" is not only prima facie wrong, it's on full display in the context of oppressor/oppressed theory explicitly opposite of the indoctrinated ideology: to woke critical race theory true believers, in fact it is not immoral to act in ANY way against their oppressors.
If you seek to disagree, then answer one question: how else do you explain that fully half of 18-24 year olds surveyed explicitly support Hamas in this conflict as cited by the [very right-wing :-)] Harvard-Harris poll? Answer your own question above: What makes someone do that?
Excellent article & well penned, but do not *ever* use the term "subhuman" - it is rather a constant part of human nature that some commit evil, from the richest to the poorest. They are human nonetheless - which does not, however, plead mercy for such crimes.
And I insist you find three other characters covering their eyes, ears & mouth respectively. It's a common metaphor; you should be able to do so easily. (Or drop it, since it's not new to anyone, nor does it add much. And for what it's worth, primates don't have the intelligence to avert their eyes. Curious & honest creatures they are all, unlike many of us human beings.)
"Abstain from all [even remotely plausible] appearance of evil" - 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (my brackets - and that may be the first time I've pounded a bible.)
To the subject, I think the sticking point for the Sanders ex-spokeser is actually the use of "systematic" which, she is saying, implies that this specific horror was planned on some higher level by leadership - which without evidence is indeed a leap, though they planned the plan in general, and must have known it was likely to happen. The problem is, she's unable to make her point well & clearly - she has to open it by foo-faffing about whether *any* rape happened, because, well, you know why. Young men let loose do bad things often. Not a hard thing to admit, but she can't. So she beclowns herself. (More.)
Yet I have to raise a small caution where the article: says, "Someone like you or I would not mass rape women regardless of whether we were at war. That would be completely unimaginable." Yes, indeed - we never imagine or expect that any of the people on our team could do such things, but inevitably, with a large enough team, a few do, so we must police ourselves most harshly, as Hamas failed to do, lest our own causes be marred with bitter little tragedies.
imo unless you assume that most of your readers have read most of your work, you need to make clear - as you did on your "The Rule of Midwits, One Year Later" piece from Jan '23, that when you write "egalitarian left" you mean the "anti-meritocratic oligarchy".
I had to go search earlier of your articles to fully figure out what was going on - at first I thought your reference to the "egalitarian left" was code for "those woke DEI advocates who worship at the temple of 'equity' (equality of outcomes)"
There is something of an egalitarian thought experiment that does make sense. Something along the lines of "If I were in that condition I would behave the same." While this isn't the egalitarianism you're attacking, I think its a deep rooted one here as well. It's in the words of contextualization.
I'm not sure there's anyway to respond to that without having to discuss some hard and disturbing facts about the world. Some things are best destroyed even if (or especially because) they don't have agency. It might be horrific for Frankenstein to kill his monster because of its evil nature, but it might be better than to let it live.
"Focus less on intent...." I have to disagree with this bit of your essay. The most effective attack on SJW virtue-signalling is a psychological attack. It is to show that it not born of humane compassion for the downtrodden. It is about personal VANITY (feeling superior to your 'deplorable' peers. It is a (primarily) self-engrossed white middle class mind-game with not a vestige of anything noble about it. Its trump card (for decades now) has been this false equation (even by many conservatives) Left=caring/Right=hard-hearted. This is the link that must be broken.
I think the Twitter post was actually made from a very reasonable perspective. Firstly every war has its propaganda and propaganda is mostly based on facts that are presented in a time and manner that is misleading people. Then there are also blatant lies manufactured out of thin air, such as the 40 decapitated babies. Atrocity propaganda is very popular, and anything that sways emotion really. Which is why people should be very very desenditized to the words "babies", "massacre", "biolabs", "weapons of mass destruction", "organ harvesting", "decapitation", "rape", etc in the early stages of a war and basically treat it as if it were lies, even if there is some evidence for it.
There have been propaganda efforts by Israel to paint Hamas as inhuman, the same as ISIS, with barbaric decapitations, etc. and some of the evidence for this has been false, while it is unknown if the IDF engineered other evidence directly (captured Hamas soldier testimony, dropbags and weapons findings). One should always be sceptical when the only source of this information is coming only from one diection.
Hamas are not barbarians like ISIS, this is simply bullshit. Of course there have been brutal executions, killing innocent civilians, etc. regardless and of course treating non-Muslims as filth, antisemitism and such. Poor people, poor culture, poor methods of war, that's how a lot of it comes to be. However what people really need to understand about Hamas is, that they have been elected by the Palestinians and they represent what the Palestinians believe in. And while what they believe in really sounds like religious fanatism to a westerner, it is really not from a Muslim's perspective. They are simply fighting jihad. They want ethnic cleansing of Israel, because Jews will not convert to Islam, and this is what the Quran tells them is right. They wage war because the government has no Sharia law. They build their military bases right next to hospitals, schools and mosques, so that the victims on their side will become better martyrs. It all makes sense to those people. And it is why we can never get rid of Hamas, and you can bomb down half of the Gaza strip those people will never listen to reason. Each time you create more martyrs, for their family to follow in their path.
But on the matter of outcome, considering that Hamas is like a cancer only good to spawn more evil, what Israel is doing now is the only reasonable path forward. It is a sad story, but the truth is that decimating their population is the only viable option left. One can only hope that god will take the devil that is Islam out of their minds.
I think this is maybe the best elucidation of the “inegalitarian” perspective and some of your clearest, most compelling work. Excellent article that I intend to share.
Right up there with, 'the Protests were mostly peaceful' as overturned cars and buildings burn in the background.
Is the line in paragraph 3 that says “imaginable” meant to say “unimaginable”?
Yeah, nice catch
It's the genius strategy of these murdering, raping barbarians; they present themselves as the underdog.
Yeah it's really inexplicable to watch this sort of behavior. The situation seems so clear. But they have to complicate it.
The 1940s Progressives were down playing the atrocities of the Nazi Party. Only through modern press outsized control have they been able to obscure that truth.
This is a great piece. I discussed the mentality that leads to such outbursts here. If you’re someone with too much empathy for their own good and are constantly worries that Bad People will do Bad Things to your pet victims (even when they deserve it, because you encouraged them to “advocate” eg act in an antisocial manner), you’re going to get Brie Brie.
https://madogiwazoku.substack.com/p/on-pet-victim-protection
so beautifully put
LOL, this would be perfect for a piece on ‘bad faith reasoning.’ Inegalitarians also deny violent atrocities. Denying atrocities has zero to do with egalitarianism, and everything to do with partisanship. What also makes this bad faith is that there are no egalitarians who deny that members of any group can commit crimes or act immorally. You’ve abandoned rationality altogether in this argument. What makes someone do that?
One of the (many) reasons you are wrong in your assertion of bad-faith reasoning on Brian's part here is that the people doing the atrocity-denying here are not died-in-the-wool religious Hamas true believers, they are western woke radicals, claiming to wear proper liberal clothing, who in most other liberal/woke contexts would decry men using sexual violence against women, and would shout that "a woman has the right to be believed".
Your ridiculous assertion that "there are no egalitarians who deny that members of any group can commit crimes or act immorally" is not only prima facie wrong, it's on full display in the context of oppressor/oppressed theory explicitly opposite of the indoctrinated ideology: to woke critical race theory true believers, in fact it is not immoral to act in ANY way against their oppressors.
If you seek to disagree, then answer one question: how else do you explain that fully half of 18-24 year olds surveyed explicitly support Hamas in this conflict as cited by the [very right-wing :-)] Harvard-Harris poll? Answer your own question above: What makes someone do that?
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HHP_Dec23_KeyResults.pdf
(see slides 47 and 46)
Excellent article & well penned, but do not *ever* use the term "subhuman" - it is rather a constant part of human nature that some commit evil, from the richest to the poorest. They are human nonetheless - which does not, however, plead mercy for such crimes.
And I insist you find three other characters covering their eyes, ears & mouth respectively. It's a common metaphor; you should be able to do so easily. (Or drop it, since it's not new to anyone, nor does it add much. And for what it's worth, primates don't have the intelligence to avert their eyes. Curious & honest creatures they are all, unlike many of us human beings.)
"Abstain from all [even remotely plausible] appearance of evil" - 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (my brackets - and that may be the first time I've pounded a bible.)
To the subject, I think the sticking point for the Sanders ex-spokeser is actually the use of "systematic" which, she is saying, implies that this specific horror was planned on some higher level by leadership - which without evidence is indeed a leap, though they planned the plan in general, and must have known it was likely to happen. The problem is, she's unable to make her point well & clearly - she has to open it by foo-faffing about whether *any* rape happened, because, well, you know why. Young men let loose do bad things often. Not a hard thing to admit, but she can't. So she beclowns herself. (More.)
Yet I have to raise a small caution where the article: says, "Someone like you or I would not mass rape women regardless of whether we were at war. That would be completely unimaginable." Yes, indeed - we never imagine or expect that any of the people on our team could do such things, but inevitably, with a large enough team, a few do, so we must police ourselves most harshly, as Hamas failed to do, lest our own causes be marred with bitter little tragedies.
> And I insist you find three other characters covering their eyes, ears & mouth respectively.
The motif comes from Japan, where it is called the three wise monkeys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys. To replace monkeys with anything else is nonsensical.
In the US, this animal carries significant racist under tones.
Claiming Israel is perpetrating genocide is dehumanizing.
It’s “who whom”. Always was, always will be.
Well, I watch a bit of The Hills rising with BJG, and she often prefaces her points with acknowledging ignorance of the topic.
BJG opens, "Well, I don't know if rape happened or not..."
That is the dehumanizing part.
Not dehumanizing, gas lighting.
imo unless you assume that most of your readers have read most of your work, you need to make clear - as you did on your "The Rule of Midwits, One Year Later" piece from Jan '23, that when you write "egalitarian left" you mean the "anti-meritocratic oligarchy".
I had to go search earlier of your articles to fully figure out what was going on - at first I thought your reference to the "egalitarian left" was code for "those woke DEI advocates who worship at the temple of 'equity' (equality of outcomes)"
There is something of an egalitarian thought experiment that does make sense. Something along the lines of "If I were in that condition I would behave the same." While this isn't the egalitarianism you're attacking, I think its a deep rooted one here as well. It's in the words of contextualization.
I'm not sure there's anyway to respond to that without having to discuss some hard and disturbing facts about the world. Some things are best destroyed even if (or especially because) they don't have agency. It might be horrific for Frankenstein to kill his monster because of its evil nature, but it might be better than to let it live.
Do you have a different take on this?
"Focus less on intent...." I have to disagree with this bit of your essay. The most effective attack on SJW virtue-signalling is a psychological attack. It is to show that it not born of humane compassion for the downtrodden. It is about personal VANITY (feeling superior to your 'deplorable' peers. It is a (primarily) self-engrossed white middle class mind-game with not a vestige of anything noble about it. Its trump card (for decades now) has been this false equation (even by many conservatives) Left=caring/Right=hard-hearted. This is the link that must be broken.
Other than that I think your essay is great.
I think the Twitter post was actually made from a very reasonable perspective. Firstly every war has its propaganda and propaganda is mostly based on facts that are presented in a time and manner that is misleading people. Then there are also blatant lies manufactured out of thin air, such as the 40 decapitated babies. Atrocity propaganda is very popular, and anything that sways emotion really. Which is why people should be very very desenditized to the words "babies", "massacre", "biolabs", "weapons of mass destruction", "organ harvesting", "decapitation", "rape", etc in the early stages of a war and basically treat it as if it were lies, even if there is some evidence for it.
There have been propaganda efforts by Israel to paint Hamas as inhuman, the same as ISIS, with barbaric decapitations, etc. and some of the evidence for this has been false, while it is unknown if the IDF engineered other evidence directly (captured Hamas soldier testimony, dropbags and weapons findings). One should always be sceptical when the only source of this information is coming only from one diection.
Hamas are not barbarians like ISIS, this is simply bullshit. Of course there have been brutal executions, killing innocent civilians, etc. regardless and of course treating non-Muslims as filth, antisemitism and such. Poor people, poor culture, poor methods of war, that's how a lot of it comes to be. However what people really need to understand about Hamas is, that they have been elected by the Palestinians and they represent what the Palestinians believe in. And while what they believe in really sounds like religious fanatism to a westerner, it is really not from a Muslim's perspective. They are simply fighting jihad. They want ethnic cleansing of Israel, because Jews will not convert to Islam, and this is what the Quran tells them is right. They wage war because the government has no Sharia law. They build their military bases right next to hospitals, schools and mosques, so that the victims on their side will become better martyrs. It all makes sense to those people. And it is why we can never get rid of Hamas, and you can bomb down half of the Gaza strip those people will never listen to reason. Each time you create more martyrs, for their family to follow in their path.
But on the matter of outcome, considering that Hamas is like a cancer only good to spawn more evil, what Israel is doing now is the only reasonable path forward. It is a sad story, but the truth is that decimating their population is the only viable option left. One can only hope that god will take the devil that is Islam out of their minds.