top

gorge #transphobia #sexist #racist themotte.org

[paragraph breaks added for legibility]

In recent years when it became a cancelable offense in any non-explicitly right-wing institution to say, "transwomen are not women", it got me wondering when did majority elite opinion first require believing obviously insane things. There has always been crazy beliefs, but many of those crazy beliefs are at least plausible if you don't have firsthand experience and are just reading about it in the books.

For instance, I believe in HBD, not blank slatism with regards to race, but unless you spend a lot of time interacting with a cross-section of each race, it's at least plausible to believe that it's just a matter of education or not getting a proper chance.

But when did majority elite opinion become crazy in a way that required people to defy what they saw with their own eyes? My answer is allowing women in combat. Sex differences in size, strength, demeanor, interests, are just so great, the importance of women to childbearing is so obvious, that believing women have a right to be in combat is both crazy and crazy in a way that defies obvious common sense, defies what people see with their own eyes. A few years ago I happened to be watching the Ruth Bader Ginsberg documentary and they were praising her for the famous Citadel case where the Supreme Court acquiesced to an appeals court grant a constitutional right to a woman to attend a state funded military academy. RBG is praised for her brains, but to me, that signifies when elite opinion had totally gone off the rails.

ThisIsSin #sexist #dunning-kruger themotte.org

Rather than not 'having' to, I assert they didn't want to as a natural consequence of feminine systems only ever competing internally for dominance.

Societies become feminine when they become overpopulated relative to the economic opportunity per capita present. If there's sufficient population they turn to mass murder; that's where the [people of the] Khmer Rouge's "let's murder 1 in 4 people for Mean Girls reasons" philosophy came from. And then there's the South Koreans- a different culture, yes- but they prefer to conduct this conflict by just not reproducing instead of mass post-natal abortion (or pre-natal in the Chinese case).

Now, saying 'economic opportunity' is papering over an utterly massive sum of factors- more advanced technology can either help or hurt this based on who's needed to get the most of it (either it centralizes it and makes capital more valuable, or it decentralizes it and makes labor more valuable; industry was generally the latter, but as labor costs rise all advancements have been in the centralization direction re: robotics). And environmental factors can affect this as well.

And sure, mass murder isn't necessarily unique to feminine societies- late 18th century France being kind of the poster child of that far more than the Nazis were, but if you think of the French Revolution as a massive power vacuum collapsing due to the [not working-class] losing their ability to hold it together (due to technological factors) over 5-10 years, then the working class installing its dictator (Bonaparte), and then striking out to impose the [second] European Union?

To be fair, this model does have some holes- I'm still not entirely sure how to explain the ritual mass suicide euphemistically called "World War 1" other than "we finally figured out metallurgy and assembly lines good enough to do it, so we went for it solely for shits and giggles".

But those wars did create a particular political thinker who did notice that humanity dies when all the world turns female; 1984 is a treatise on that. (So's Animal Farm, for that matter, but it's not explicitly incel-coded like 1984 is.)