When Will We Move On From Wokeness?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Wokeness is guaranteed permanence by the framework of workplace civil rights and harassment law, which means that businesses can be sued for not accommodating a woke employee with a protected identity. Look at the Bostock case which extended sex discrimination protections to trans employees.

* New Atheism didn’t fail because Christians proved they were wrong about God’s existence. It failed because a hipper generation of young people accepted all their premises but declared them uncool for caring about it too much.

Posted in America | Comments Off on When Will We Move On From Wokeness?

The Paranoid Style Of Adam Curtis

From the New York Review of Books:

Curtis films purport to be about us. But the paranoid writing dominates, and the viewer is left with unknown anxieties projected onto known images, a sort of emotional break-in. Curtis can’t seem to get Curtis out of his head, and I am not sure that his films tell us about anything else. In his 2010 film, Richard Nixon—Paranoia and Moral Panics, Curtis declared his emotional history a universal one:

This is a film about how all of us have become Richard Nixon. Just like him, we have all become paranoid weirdos. It’s the story of how television and newspapers did this and how it has paralyzed the ability of politics to transform the world for the better.… But then, in the 1990s, the journalists became even more like Richard Nixon. Like him, they started to see hidden enemies everywhere.

We know that Curtis always asserts he is a journalist. But as the narrator of his own films, he feels compelled to dismiss journalists. This is pure paranoid fragmentation: a paranoid individual like all other paranoid individuals but insisting on being unlike all others. He is everywhere and nowhere.

For Curtis, all human behavior becomes a monochromatic cloud of intention that can be tracked like a flight. Distinct forces play against distinct forces without the complications of chance or the constraint of specific details. One scientific blunder becomes the failure of science itself. One overeager journalist becomes the field itself. Eras and cohorts and ideas are smooth circles, rounded off by the totalizing buff of power’s sneaky omnipotence.

Notice, in fact, how many times Curtis uses the words “nothing” and “everything” in all of his work. Very little reporting can stand up to those kindergarten words, and by choosing a category that essentially doesn’t exist—can you name an actual everything, an event that does not admit to exception?—Curtis is making clear that reporting means little to him.

The appeal of conspiracizing for Curtis and his followers is exactly this unverifiable fog, this woolen hug of futility. If nothing can be done, inactivity looks normative. Conspiracism is the enemy of collective action. The group takes action and counts its wins and losses after the day. The conspiracist, answers scrawled on his hand, hangs back and cynically tells a story about why it never would have worked anyway. Curtis and his cohort love the idea of a grand story that never needs to be revised or reported out.

The darkest and largest force always wins, has always already won. Curtis simply confirms the bad news.

Posted in Adam Curtis | Comments Off on The Paranoid Style Of Adam Curtis

Hegemonic Degeneration

Ed West writes: Progressivism already suffers from what Swedish academic Carl Ritter called “hegemonic degeneration”, that when a belief becomes established, made flabby by institutional protection, then the genuinely interesting and intellectually curious will look for something else.

The most intelligent people coming out of university now often seem to be, if not conservative, then at least critical of the new faith (not necessarily from the Right). But it also seems to me, at least, that many of the most intelligent critics appear to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, which makes them far more interested in truth than social acceptability. Perhaps it is with the neuro-diverse that our future hopes rests.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Hegemonic Degeneration

The Respectability Cascade

Scott Alexander writes:

The first milestone on that path was Milo Yiannopoulos. As outrageous and offensive as he was, he was actually a step above everyone who had come before him in terms of visibility and respectability – at least nobody expected him to shoot up a school or anything. The second milestone was Jordan Peterson, who was an obvious step up in respectability beyond Milo. There was a really interesting period in 2016 when the media was trying to decide whether to unite in character-assassinating Peterson the same way it had character-assassinated all previous people in this space, or treat him as some sort of interesting and potentially sympathetic phenomenon, and it decided on the interesting phenomenon angle. After that, being anti-SJW lost about 90% of its stigma, to the point where people would roll their eyes instead of freaking out. This New York Times article on the Intellectual Dark Web essentially turned the semi-respectability of anti-SJWism into common knowledge, and makes a fascinating contrast with the TIME article on MRAs linked above.

The whole process was a very clear example of a respectability cascade. There’s some position which is relatively commonly held, but considered beyond the pale for respectable people. In the beginning, the only people who will say it openly are extremely non-respectable people who don’t mind getting cast out of normal society for their sin. Everyone attacks them, but afterwards they are still basically standing, and their openness encourages slightly more respectable people to say the same thing. This creates a growing nucleus of ever-more-respectable people speaking openly, until eventually it’s no longer really that taboo and anyone who wants can talk about it with only minor stigma. It’s the same story as atheism, gay rights, and a hundred other things that were once taboo but eventually became mainstream.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Respectability Cascade

The Paranoid Response

When I check up on friends who are going through a tough time, occasionally I get paranoid responses along the lines of why do you want to know?

So while I have stayed friends with them, I never again check in with the paranoid. Who needs the aggravation?

Hostile responses to innocent inquiries are not a good sign of mental stability. Why make it hard for people to care about you? When you increase the costs of talking to you, people naturally withdraw.

I once sent this girl flowers. She responded, “It’s too early for this.” I never again sent her flowers. She later told me how much she appreciated them, she was just afraid to show me that.

We train people how to respond to us. She trained me to hold back from loving her.

I like to greet people I know. Some people respond rudely, and so I never greet them again. If we’re going to talk, they’re going to have to start. I’m not giving anything.

I’ve driven across town to help an acquaintance and when I get there I see they’ve already solved the problem but they couldn’t be bothered to let me know (and thus save me a trip). So I don’t extend myself again to them.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on The Paranoid Response