Why do so many "anti SJW's" resent disabled people?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The vast majority seem to be very pro capitalist. I've seen a lot of people like this refer to themselves as leftists or "centrists", but then say they support the free market, making cuts to welfare and referring to people who can't work/are limited with work they can do as burdens. To me it's shocking that people who promote themselves as social/political commentators will focus on crap like people thinking there's more than 2 genders, or the 10 feminists in the world who genuinely hate men, meanwhile say little to nothing about the huge amount of damage the money system does to people's lives in so many ways. I knew someone who was denied an organ transplant because of their disability, and the hospital didn't want to waste funds on them. That's what happens with capitalism, money is put before people, especially the ones not "contributing" enough. The fact that a lot of anti SJW's repeatedly use autism and Down syndrome as insults can be telling too, as it looks as though they view them as sub human. I you are a capitalist/"anti SJW" who doesn't feel this way, that doesn't change the fact that these things are still very specific to capitalists.

It's worth noting that depending on what information you've omitted ("because of their disability" is very broad in possible scope), the denial of an organ transplant can be quite defensible. Among other things, hospitals do have limited resources and the organs used for transplants can't exactly be made in a factory. The median waiting time for kidneys for instance is a full 5 years and there are 93,000 people waiting for one. Similarly, in 2014 alone there were 6950 patients approved for heart transplants, but only 2250 hearts became available for transplant. And while the number of people waiting for an organ transplant has grown significantly even over the last decade, the number of donors has remained quite stagnant.
image

By necessity, hospitals have to make strategic decisions with donated organs because it is in effect a zero-sum game. One patient's good fortune is another patient's loss. Consequentially in their effort to do the most good the doctors and surgeons have to make decisions about the patients based both on how badly they need the transplant and how much good it will do them. This is not something that is "specific to capitalists", as you claim. This is something that is a natural consequence of scarce resources.

Asita:
It's worth noting that depending on what information you've omitted ("because of their disability" is very broad in possible scope), the denial of an organ transplant can be quite defensible. Among other things, hospitals do have limited resources and the organs used for transplants can't exactly be made in a factory. The median waiting time for kidneys for instance is a full 5 years and there are 93,000 people waiting for one. Similarly, in 2014 alone there were 6950 patients approved for heart transplants, but only 2250 hearts became available for transplant. And while the number of people waiting for an organ transplant has grown significantly even over the last decade, the number of donors has remained quite stagnant.
image

By necessity, hospitals have to make strategic decisions with donated organs because it is in effect a zero-sum game. One patient's good fortune is another patient's loss. Consequentially in their effort to do the most good the doctors and surgeons have to make decisions about the patients based both on how badly they need the transplant and how much good it will do them. This is not something that is "specific to capitalists", as you claim. This is something that is a natural consequence of scarce resources.

Resentment/stigmatizing of people due to lack of ability is something specific to capitalists. The transplant story was just one example, the person I knew was actually considered eligible for an organ transplant by the team he was with, but was then denied as it would be a "waste of funds". And it's money in the first place that puts constraints on resources.

Well, you've expressed in a very barefaced way here something I've been dancing around, and something I find genuinely scary about the state of modern popular culture and geek culture in particular.

To a certain extent, conservatives have always gone for soft targets, people who are already socially maligned or not well accepted. Right now trans people in general are a soft targets. There was supposed to be review in the UK of gender recognition act which would have streamlined and de-medicalized the process of legally transitioning, but it's been suspended after a very ugly campaign in the press (not just the right-wing press, there are a lot of TERFs who hide on the left and use their friends at the Guardian as a mouthpiece).

Non-binary people therefore are really soft targets. Even in developed countries, the majority of people, when surveyed, express discriminatory views towards them. So non-binary people make a good object lesson that progressiveness has gone too far or that we need to return to conservative values.

But the actual worrying thing about "anti-SJWs" is that, for all the """"rational"""" "facts not feelings" rhetoric they tend to confuse mockery and appeals to popularity as an argument. If they want to argue against "feminism" they won't read academic feminist texts or even debate actual feminist figures (or rather when they do it doesn't go well, see Sargon "debating" Kristi Winters) instead they'll pick out some random video of a protester having a bad day and losing her shit and say "see, SEE, this is what the feminists are like, they aren't rational or reasonable", or they'll post pictures of people and mock their physical appearance, or they'll engage in one-sided conspiratorial rants about Anita Sarkeesian for some reason. The point is never to win the argument or even to have an argument, the point is always to draw attention to the "type" of person someone is as a means of discrediting them without needing to engage with them at all.

And that's what's dangerous about "anti-SJWs", it's why there's such a strong overlap with the actual racist or "civic-nationalist" far right, it's not just that they're insulting or bullying, although that isn't very nice, it's that they train their (often very young) fans to see insults as a means of winning arguments, that being the wrong kind of person (disabled, queer, a woman) automatically makes you less rational before you've even opened your mouth, and that feeds very well into adopting explicit political views based on hatred, prejudice or the excessive valuation of "purity".

Most, I suspect, will eventually grow out of it and their little time spent railing against feminist infiltration in magic the gathering or whatever will do no harm to them, they will figure out that the real world is more complicated than online vlogs by shouty white men make it seem. But a few won't, they will continue to live in a world where everything bad is the fault of "the progressive agenda" and they will take that out on real people they encounter in their lives. That's what frightens me.

evilthecat:
Well, you've expressed in a very barefaced way here something I've been dancing around, and something I find genuinely scary about the state of modern popular culture and geek culture in particular.

To a certain extent, conservatives have always gone for soft targets, people who are already socially maligned or not well accepted. Right now trans people in general are a soft targets. There was supposed to be review in the UK of gender recognition act which would have streamlined and de-medicalized the process of legally transitioning, but it's been suspended after a very ugly campaign in the press (not just the right-wing press, there are a lot of TERFs who hide on the left and use their friends at the Guardian as a mouthpiece).

Non-binary people therefore are really soft targets. Even in developed countries, the majority of people, when surveyed, express discriminatory views towards them. So non-binary people make a good object lesson that progressiveness has gone too far or that we need to return to conservative values.

But the actual worrying thing about "anti-SJWs" is that, for all the """"rational"""" "facts not feelings" rhetoric they tend to confuse mockery and appeals to popularity as an argument. If they want to argue against "feminism" they won't read academic feminist texts or even debate actual feminist figures (or rather when they do it doesn't go well, see Sargon "debating" Kristi Winters) instead they'll pick out some random video of a protester having a bad day and losing her shit and say "see, SEE, this is what the feminists are like, they aren't rational or reasonable", or they'll post pictures of people and mock their physical appearance, or they'll engage in one-sided conspiratorial rants about Anita Sarkeesian for some reason. The point is never to win the argument or even to have an argument, the point is always to draw attention to the "type" of person someone is as a means of discrediting them without needing to engage with them at all.

And that's what's dangerous about "anti-SJWs", it's why there's such a strong overlap with the actual racist or "civic-nationalist" far right, it's not just that they're insulting or bullying, although that isn't very nice, it's that they train their (often very young) fans to see insults as a means of winning arguments, that being the wrong kind of person (disabled, queer, a woman) automatically makes you less rational before you've even opened your mouth, and that feeds very well into adopting explicit political views based on hatred, prejudice or the excessive valuation of "purity".

Most, I suspect, will eventually grow out of it and their little time spent railing against feminist infiltration in magic the gathering or whatever will do no harm to them, they will figure out that the real world is more complicated than online vlogs by shouty white men make it seem. But a few won't, they will continue to live in a world where everything bad is the fault of "the progressive agenda" and they will take that out on real people they encounter in their lives. That's what frightens me.

The thing is that I don't even really put much belief in that whole multiple genders thing myself. Neither do I consider myself a feminist. But I have no idea WHY people care. Why should I care if people believe there's more than 2 genders. The only time I can see it as an issue is with regards to free speech, but most of the time it seems to have nothing to do with that. If the worst thing about something is that they don't like it/think it's weird, then it's a non issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm more bothered about, you know, economic slavery and people getting fucked over by a scummy system. I don't even think most "anti SJW's" are racist, sexist etc, but most do indeed seem to be apathetic about how the economy affects people. I've yet to see any criticize capitalism. Plus the whole talking point of complaining about "straight white men" being used as an insult comes off as kind of false to me since, like you said, many insult people's appearances. You can't have much of an issue with insulting people over stuff they can't control when you insult appearances, which is one of the most common things to insult.

I've also noticed many contradict themselves about "identity politics". An empty husk of a man named Dave Rubin harps on about identity politics all the time, yet then talks about "why I left the left". What is "the left"? Left and right aren't groups. It's about economics and policies you agree with. If you abandon your "leftist" convictions because you disagree with other leftists about things, that contradicts the idea that you're against group identities, because if you really were, you would know that your convictions are your convictions, and other people's bad behavior doesn't take away from that. Considering how shitty many right wingers are, ( and that right wing economics/policies are responsible for stigmatizing people for being needy) it's odd how there's considerably less "why I left the right" sentiments. It's fabricated to slander leftists. At the end of the day, if I agree with an idea that is specific to leftism, I'm going to support it regardless of what other leftists are doing, because it's not about them. Isn't that the opposite of having a group mentality?

Let's be frank. Anti-SJW's seem to have the common view of "fuck everyone who rocks the boat, even if they're doing it so that they don't get abused." Anti-SJWs very commonly are content with their lot in life and therefore everyone who suffers in the system they enjoy is clearly out to get them, and that includes people who need adjustments in the system in order to be healthy and happy, or need some sort of special arrangements. It's the ultimate selfish mindset of "well, I'M fine, why the fuck do you need special attention?" usually ignoring that they probably do get special attention, they've just normalized it to the point where they think it's just the status quo.

They despise the "other." The person that's not like them. To them, people with autism are just mentally ill freaks who need to be shunned and mocked. The feminist is just an uppity bitch who wants them to never have fun ever and every time she complains about those pesky sexual assault situations she's just trying to defame an honest man. Transgenered people are mentally ill to them (I remember one cunt who actually argued that and said that he came to the conclusion that that was the case, good for you man, I'll call you if I want medical research discarded and just listen to some guy's fee-fees) they hate academics because academics say things that are obviously wrong because they just have a gut feeling that they must be, poor people are leeches, immigrants can't do anything of value, you get the idea.

Also they don't do any research to back anything they say up. They argue gender should be tied to genitals. Well. If that's the case, they should be in total support of five genders due to there being around three different ways a person can have am mixture of male and female genitalia, but you don't see that because that would require actual effort on their part and not just them going "well I always did it this way, therefore everyone should."

Is it any wonder that all modern neo-Nazis end up being anti-SJWs?

This is without getting into the toxic masculinity (oh noes, I said the forbidden term) that oozes out of them whenever they use "cuck" as an insult.

TiaTia:
I've yet to see any criticize capitalism.

Well, what do you count as criticism of capitalism?

We live in a capitalist society, so arguably any form ideology critique which takes mainstream society or culture as its target is a critique of capitalism.

It's very easy to see how the system of sexual inequality which feminists object to, for example, functions as a way of controlling and exploiting women either as labourers (capitalism needs women to reproduce new generations of labourers) and as commodities in and of themselves.

In most cases, the connection is implicit (although there is still a strong Marxist-feminist tradition who view it as explicit) but even if we take something that might seem completely incidental, like Anita Sarkseesian's "tropes versus women" series, it's ultimately examining a practice of selling the idea of women (of women's sexual availability, vulnerability and/or inferiority) as a way of motivating and engaging male consumers. That is ultimately a practice indicative of and unique to capitalism.

I mean, this is why a lot of "anti-SJWs" won't shut up about "cultural Marxism" or the "Frankfurt school" (even if they stole these ideas wholesale from the far right). Because a lot of the work of the actual real-life Frankfurt school (as opposed to the secret Jewish conspiracy frankfurt school the far right believes in) focused on the connection between culture and individual psychology and broader social and economic formations like capitalism.

And there's always been a bunch of people on the left who see this kind of thinking as "divisive" and think that once class-based oppression is destroyed the rest will naturally follow, but personally.. I'm a little skeptical. That sounds kind of naive to me.

I mean, any kind of gender non-conformity was, until very recently, seen as a form of disability. For trans people, it still is kind of treated like a disability (one of the things the review of the gender recognition act was supposed to change). Homosexuality was only removed from the DSM (which registered it as a recognized mental disorder in the United States) in 1987. Nowadays, acceptance of gay people is often treated as conditional on their status as workers and consumers, and equal rights is the equal right to be marketed to (and yeah, I think you could probably make a case that "SJWs" sometimes indulge this without criticizing it, but that's also true of popular culture in general - I mean, this is a forum devoted to video games, which are a commercial product made by companies by workers to be sold to consumers).

Regardless, the connections are there, if you want to see them.

its just down to simple logic in their mind actually.
if you are anti sjw you must hate EVERYTHING they stand for so it comes down to
SJW=feminist=left=socialism
opposite of socialism is capitalism
Capitalism=US conservative=doesn't want to spend tax money on anything that isn't police or military=people that need financial support from the state are better of starving.

TiaTia:
Resentment/stigmatizing of people due to lack of ability is something specific to capitalists.

Bull. The weak get screwed over under pretty much every system. Even with socialist parties, you might look after the disabled marginally better, but you sure as hell don't see many of them running for government. The stigma is societal and not specific to an economic system.

Catnip1024:
Bull. The weak get screwed over under pretty much every system. Even with socialist parties, you might look after the disabled marginally better, but you sure as hell don't see many of them running for government. The stigma is societal and not specific to an economic system.

It's interesting that you've seamlessly equated disability with weakness.

I don't mean that in the "hah, gotcha" sense. It's just interesting.

evilthecat:

Catnip1024:
Bull. The weak get screwed over under pretty much every system. Even with socialist parties, you might look after the disabled marginally better, but you sure as hell don't see many of them running for government. The stigma is societal and not specific to an economic system.

It's interesting that you've seamlessly equated disability with weakness.

I don't mean that in the "hah, gotcha" sense. It's just interesting.

From a societal / darwinism point of view, it generally is. Not being funny, that's just life.

Sure, there are examples where it can actually be beneficial for certain tasks, and a lot of the rest of the time a disabled person is as effective as any other, but by and large, you are less capable across tasks as a whole, and less capable of defending oneself, physically or politically.

Personally I'd have no real issue with a disabled person as a politician, but I would kind of expect that they'd get a lower share of the vote than the equivalent non-disabled politician. Possibly due to the public perception of them being inherently weaker / more vulnerable. And, not that we have many examples of functioning societies not using at least some degree of capitalism, I believe that the disabled would be subject to the same bullshit regardless of economic / political system.

Catnip1024:
From a societal / darwinism point of view, it generally is. Not being funny, that's just life.

You know, you're kind of undermining your own point here, because the kind of (discredited) social Darwinism you're using here is very much an outgrowth of liberalism and laissez-faire capitalist economic theory.

It's also not very Darwinist, since Darwinism is ultimately concerned with genetic survival, not with "weakness". Again, the idea of "weakness" is very capitalist.

evilthecat:

You know, you're kind of undermining your own point here, because the kind of (discredited) social Darwinism you're using here is very much an outgrowth of liberalism and laissez-faire capitalist economic theory.

It's also not very Darwinist, since Darwinism is ultimately concerned with genetic survival, not with "weakness". Again, the idea of "weakness" is very capitalist.

Well ... ehhh ... it's hard to couple Darwinism with genetic survival given Darwinism doesn't actually account for it. All of us have corrupted genetic material simply by trudging around Earth and picking up viral fragments. Darwinian genetic survival doesn't account for womb conditions that are purely environmental like depending on age and number of prior births.

Moreover it doesn't even work when we take concepts of society out of the picture. Such as black swans. Part and parcel of the success of black swans is that 25% of all male black swans form aggressively monogamous homosexual relationships, where by they actively steal the nests of females and raise their cygnets for them.

Occasionally forming very temporary relationships to a female, regardless of actual genetic material from which actual partner has 'survived', solely to get those fertilized eggs and the pair chasing them away afterwards. It's theorized this system of aggressive male coupling being so prevalent actually increases the total survival of all possible cygnets which creates that genetic diversity you want to see as well as increase total breeding numbers.

So it's not the act of genetic survival, it's merely an act of the greatest possible breeding pairs that can come out of th most possible surviving hatchlings.

Which is kind of the opposite.

Here we have a species where large slabs of their population intentionally does not seek their 'genetic survival', but their presence alone guarantees greater total genetic diversity and survival of the species.

It works if you take loose aspects of Darwinism ... it fucking fails when you couple with Darwinism genetic survival as an imperative.

I mean it's living proof you don't even need to procreate to contribute to genetic survival, and far greater amounts of genetic diversity. Because there'd simply be less genetic diversity and less surviviving cygnets if you took away 25% of black swans who look nearly exclusively to only their own sex. Procreation is, ironically, zero sum if you actually take an entire species and consider aspects such as total survivability. Genetic survival means nothing unless others are having a diversity of births reaching maturity.

The funny thing is, if humans themselves gave a shit about genetic survival, we'd mass fund campaigns to stop children dying needlessly. That would be our focus, making sure as many kids from as many mothers survive.

But we don't... even if 'genetic survival' is supposed to be an imperative. Because genetic survival is quite empirically secondary to genetic diversity in order for a species to survive.

evilthecat:

Catnip1024:
From a societal / darwinism point of view, it generally is. Not being funny, that's just life.

You know, you're kind of undermining your own point here, because the kind of (discredited) social Darwinism you're using here is very much an outgrowth of liberalism and laissez-faire capitalist economic theory.

It's also not very Darwinist, since Darwinism is ultimately concerned with genetic survival, not with "weakness". Again, the idea of "weakness" is very capitalist.

I'm not talking about social Darwinism, as such (hence the "/"). I'm talking about the natural selection side of things (regular old Darwinism), in which those less able to defend themselves are at an inherent disadvantage, and separately I'm talking about the societal perspective, where you do have less overall capability as a disabled person than a non-disabled person.

The Darwinistic element is pertinent, because the disabled generally get screwed over in the animal kingdom, far more so than in pretty much any human society. The slow get left behind. Which just goes to show that saying "only capitalists hate the disabled" kind of falls apart. Unless gazelles are capitalist, now.

From the societal perspective separately, it's a weakness because you have less available capability, albeit noting that that can be overcome through the proper utilisation of the available resources.

The idea of "weakness" has been around for thousands of years, through every civilisation. Weakness is a fact of life. Denying it gets nobody anywhere. Acknowledging it and working around it produces far better results in the long run (rather than pretending that the blind man is suited to pushing trolleys, for instance).

Do they resent the disabled? I mean, I don't like alt-right types either but must seem to have enough free time to probably be on disability themselves.

Thats a double edged sword though. Focusing on what toilets trans people can use is always ridiculous, whether its so called SJWs or anti-SJWs doing it.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Thats a double edged sword though. Focusing on what toilets trans people can use is always ridiculous, whether its so called SJWs or anti-SJWs doing it.

A transperson wanting to poop without being made a target is somehow being unreasonable?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Thats a double edged sword though. Focusing on what toilets trans people can use is always ridiculous, whether its so called SJWs or anti-SJWs doing it.

Gonna have to walk me through how wanting trans people to be able to use the bathroom they?re comfortable with is a bad thing.

Also this was a pretty damn limp wristed whataboutism.

jademunky:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Thats a double edged sword though. Focusing on what toilets trans people can use is always ridiculous, whether its so called SJWs or anti-SJWs doing it.

A transperson wanting to poop without being made a target is somehow being unreasonable?

erttheking:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Thats a double edged sword though. Focusing on what toilets trans people can use is always ridiculous, whether its so called SJWs or anti-SJWs doing it.

Gonna have to walk me through how wanting trans people to be able to use the bathroom they?re comfortable with is a bad thing.

Also this was a pretty damn limp wristed whataboutism.

Nah, its absolutely not unreasonable nor a bad thing. The only contra points I've seen are ultra-conservative god-thinks-its-wrong stuff which, well, who cares, and what-if-someone-gets-raped. I have no idea how many trans people have gone into bathrooms to rape people but I wager the number is pretty low, otherwise the alt-right would make damn sure everyone heard about it, whether they wanted to or not.

What I mean is that this:

To me it's shocking that people who promote themselves as social/political commentators will focus on crap like people thinking there's more than 2 genders, or the 10 feminists in the world who genuinely hate men, meanwhile say little to nothing about the huge amount of damage the money system does to people's lives in so many ways.

taken on its own could apply to popular American politicians and journalists on both the left and right and not lose relevance. I believe it was the right who originally ballooned transgender rights into a massive make or break issue, but that doesn't mean we should let the left off the hook because they completely fell for it and now spend more time discussing gender than more important things. (Things with which they could probably win votes, something idpol is terrible at.)

To me it seems that if one side had the balls to 'drop' the issue, the other would follow suit. Its like an ideological Verdun, a pointless battle where both sides nonetheless invest staggering time and resources for very little ground.

I'm sure that if the subject was treated with the weight that it deserves - that being very little - the status quo would soon change to a point where its normal for the odd trans person to choose what bathroom they'd like to use. Sure, the odd conservative would mumble and groan, and a handful of childish gender studies students would pretend they'd won a major victory in the fight against heteronormativity, but by and large the world would just continue spinning, trans people would lead more peaceful lives and we'd have much more time to discuss bigger issues.

It's a noticeable trend that a lot of other humans they refuse - or are unable to consider 'equals' to them and diminish these only to their physical attributes instead of their personality. Cannot project their humanity on to this person that's too different, therefore that person cannot be considered an equal. Disabled humans get the doubly bad end of the stick with the conservative free-market molesters that also consider them as unproductive drains on their beloved economy, similar to old people, the mentally troubled and often full-time students. They cannot be held responsible for their primal ignorance of course, I'm certain.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

taken on its own could apply to popular American politicians and journalists on both the left and right and not lose relevance. I believe it was the right who originally ballooned transgender rights into a massive make or break issue, but that doesn't mean we should let the left off the hook because they completely fell for it and now spend more time discussing gender than more important things. (Things with which they could probably win votes, something idpol is terrible at.)

To me it seems that if one side had the balls to 'drop' the issue, the other would follow suit. Its like an ideological Verdun, a pointless battle where both sides nonetheless invest staggering time and resources for very little ground.

I'm sure that if the subject was treated with the weight that it deserves - that being very little - the status quo would soon change to a point where its normal for the odd trans person to choose what bathroom they'd like to use. Sure, the odd conservative would mumble and groan, and a handful of childish gender studies students would pretend they'd won a major victory in the fight against heteronormativity, but by and large the world would just continue spinning, trans people would lead more peaceful lives and we'd have much more time to discuss bigger issues.

Oh, so you just think that trans issues isn't something that deserves a lot of attention. Ok. Gotcha. Well, you go ahead and consider the plight of minority that is one of the most horrifically abused in the United States is something that only deserves a little bit of attention and act like the Democrats should've just ignored the Republicans contributing to that abuse to focus on the "important" issues (because I guess you can't care about more than one thing at a time) and thinking that if the Democrats stopped focusing on trans people that the right would just leave them alone (A firm sign that you seriously have no idea how the right views trans people in this country, something I say as someone who has lived here my entire life) and that everything would just turn out if it didn't receive national focus? (because that worked out great for black rights. Jim Crow? Never heard of it)

Just making sure I got your viewpoint all wrapped up nicely. Because it seems like a horribly misinformed one. Trans people are horribly, horribly abused in this country, and the idea that their issues would go away if they're just ignore is one that doesn't have a single, diseased leg to stand on.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Genetic survival is secondary to crossband genetic diversity.

Why?

I think you're assuming an opposition I haven't postulated and actually have argued against frequently on this forum, that "genetic survival" means the maximum possible proliferation of ones own individual genetic material.

To rhetorically answer the question I just phrased. Crossband genetic diversity maximizes the odds of a species as a whole surviving. But the importance of this, at least in terms of our human perspective, is the proliferation of a species also proliferates genetic material which is common or similar within that species. Everything species on earth today exists because it has survived long enough to exist today. Every piece of genetic material carried by each individual of that species exists because it has survived long enough. That doesn't mean it's good or useful, it may just be random junk, but the crucial thing from our perspective is that it has survived.

Darwin didn't really understand genetics, because genetics at the time was a theory in its infancy, so he conceived of survival in individual terms, but it doesn't work in individual terms, it works on the level of genetics because genetics are what is actually transmitted intergenerationally. Failure to transmit genetic material intergenerationally results in the extinction of that material. Evolution is not a conscious process, there is no conscious thought behind it, it doesn't plan or think in the long term. Either something lives or dies, either material is passed on or not passed on. There isn't a moral or teleological dimension to that, there is no "best" way of doing things, there is only survival and extinction.

Catnip1024:
I'm not talking about social Darwinism, as such (hence the "/"). I'm talking about the natural selection side of things (regular old Darwinism), in which those less able to defend themselves are at an inherent disadvantage,

No, you really are talking about social Darwinism.

If you were talking about "regular old Darwinism", you wouldn't be talking about people being at a "disadvantage" at anything except the ability to pass on their inherited traits, because that's what Darwinism is about. It's an explanation of how animals acquire particular traits through selection.

It makes no sense to talk about the vast majority of disability in terms of "regular old Darwinism", because with the exception of a few genetic disorders (some of which, like sickle cell disease, are actually linked to evolutionary adaptations which are useful in a particular environment) few disabilities are directly heritable. If you cut your hand off in an accident, for example, you'd be "disabled". But any children you had would still be perfectly healthy

And this isn't even touching on neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, or mental health issues like depression, which are ultimately just relatively severe versions of normal human variation in personality, mood and neurological functioning. We are all different. We are all "disabled" in various ways relative to each other. I have several disabilities, and yet there are probably things I can do which you can't. The societal standard of disability which we have has nothing to do with Darwin or gazelles, it's purely about whether you are useful to a capitalist economy.

TiaTia:
I've also noticed many contradict themselves about "identity politics".

The entire concept of "identity politics" is absurd, though. You're pretty safe in dismissing anyone that uses that phrase to condemn something. It's usually used to argue a persecuted group should shut up about being persecuted.

Catnip1024:

TiaTia:
Resentment/stigmatizing of people due to lack of ability is something specific to capitalists.

Bull. The weak get screwed over under pretty much every system. Even with socialist parties, you might look after the disabled marginally better, but you sure as hell don't see many of them running for government. The stigma is societal and not specific to an economic system.

They don't need to run for government, what people need is to not be screwed over or live without fear of needed support being cut off. I am not saying jerks wouldn't exist without capitalism, but it's the current system that allows, and pretty much creates poverty. The very concept of money creates the concept of financial issues, which then leads to the societal stigma you mentioned, when it comes to focusing on who deserves money and who doesn't, hence the endless whining about welfare, or charities aimed at certain causes.

evilthecat:
Well, you've expressed in a very barefaced way here something I've been dancing around, and something I find genuinely scary about the state of modern popular culture and geek culture in particular.

To a certain extent, conservatives have always gone for soft targets, people who are already socially maligned or not well accepted. Right now trans people in general are a soft targets. There was supposed to be review in the UK of gender recognition act which would have streamlined and de-medicalized the process of legally transitioning, but it's been suspended after a very ugly campaign in the press (not just the right-wing press, there are a lot of TERFs who hide on the left and use their friends at the Guardian as a mouthpiece).

Non-binary people therefore are really soft targets. Even in developed countries, the majority of people, when surveyed, express discriminatory views towards them. So non-binary people make a good object lesson that progressiveness has gone too far or that we need to return to conservative values.

But the actual worrying thing about "anti-SJWs" is that, for all the """"rational"""" "facts not feelings" rhetoric they tend to confuse mockery and appeals to popularity as an argument. If they want to argue against "feminism" they won't read academic feminist texts or even debate actual feminist figures (or rather when they do it doesn't go well, see Sargon "debating" Kristi Winters) instead they'll pick out some random video of a protester having a bad day and losing her shit and say "see, SEE, this is what the feminists are like, they aren't rational or reasonable", or they'll post pictures of people and mock their physical appearance, or they'll engage in one-sided conspiratorial rants about Anita Sarkeesian for some reason. The point is never to win the argument or even to have an argument, the point is always to draw attention to the "type" of person someone is as a means of discrediting them without needing to engage with them at all.

And that's what's dangerous about "anti-SJWs", it's why there's such a strong overlap with the actual racist or "civic-nationalist" far right, it's not just that they're insulting or bullying, although that isn't very nice, it's that they train their (often very young) fans to see insults as a means of winning arguments, that being the wrong kind of person (disabled, queer, a woman) automatically makes you less rational before you've even opened your mouth, and that feeds very well into adopting explicit political views based on hatred, prejudice or the excessive valuation of "purity".

Most, I suspect, will eventually grow out of it and their little time spent railing against feminist infiltration in magic the gathering or whatever will do no harm to them, they will figure out that the real world is more complicated than online vlogs by shouty white men make it seem. But a few won't, they will continue to live in a world where everything bad is the fault of "the progressive agenda" and they will take that out on real people they encounter in their lives. That's what frightens me.

"To a certain extent, conservatives have always gone for soft targets" - Where as the left have always just hated Jews like Corbz and his Momentum chums?

Hilariously bigoted and one eyed summary.

TiaTia:
They don't need to run for government, what people need is to not be screwed over or live without fear of needed support being cut off.

But that's not treating them as people.

To fully accept disabled people and treat them as the rest of the population as a whole, you would expect them to have some sort of political representation. To have, by and large, the same opportunities as the rest of the population as a whole. Not "let's stick them in a corner and leave them to it".

I am not saying jerks wouldn't exist without capitalism, but it's the current system that allows, and pretty much creates poverty. The very concept of money creates the concept of financial issues, which then leads to the societal stigma you mentioned, when it comes to focusing on who deserves money and who doesn't, hence the endless whining about welfare, or charities aimed at certain causes.

Without money, you'd still have issues. Any time resources get tight, who do you think would be the first to be left to the wolves?

And the social stigma associated with disabled people, in my eyes, is less to do with them having less financially, and more to do with the perception of them being less capable, physically or mentally. If you take away money completely, that's potentially a more significant issue, because outside of the financial world you only have your physical or mental ability to contribute.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current system is anything like perfect. But to blame capitalism for that is picking a buzzword and overlooking the intricacies that probably could be solved with sufficient willpower and effort.

evilthecat:
No, you really are talking about social Darwinism.

If you were talking about "regular old Darwinism", you wouldn't be talking about people being at a "disadvantage" at anything except the ability to pass on their inherited traits, because that's what Darwinism is about. It's an explanation of how animals acquire particular traits through selection.

It makes no sense to talk about the vast majority of disability in terms of "regular old Darwinism", because with the exception of a few genetic disorders (some of which, like sickle cell disease, are actually linked to evolutionary adaptations which are useful in a particular environment) few disabilities are directly heritable. If you cut your hand off in an accident, for example, you'd be "disabled". But any children you had would still be perfectly healthy

And this isn't even touching on neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, or mental health issues like depression, which are ultimately just relatively severe versions of normal human variation in personality, mood and neurological functioning. We are all different. We are all "disabled" in various ways relative to each other. I have several disabilities, and yet there are probably things I can do which you can't. The societal standard of disability which we have has nothing to do with Darwin or gazelles, it's purely about whether you are useful to a capitalist economy.

Except that I was clearly referring to regular Darwinism, hence the reference to gazelles. Used as an indication that the disabled are inherently disadvantaged in the wild, indicating that money has little to do with it. Disadvantaged hence less likely to pass on their genes. Hence natural selection.

And are you trying to say that clinical depression isn't more likely to prevent you passing on your genes? Young suicide rates may beg to differ on that one.

evilthecat:

Darwin didn't really understand genetics, because genetics at the time was a theory in its infancy, so he conceived of survival in individual terms, but it doesn't work in individual terms, it works on the level of genetics because genetics are what is actually transmitted intergenerationally. Failure to transmit genetic material intergenerationally results in the extinction of that material. Evolution is not a conscious process, there is no conscious thought behind it, it doesn't plan or think in the long term. Either something lives or dies, either material is passed on or not passed on. There isn't a moral or teleological dimension to that, there is no "best" way of doing things, there is only survival and extinction.

For starters, that;'s obvious. Secondly genetics is not the only thing passed, there's been more than a few studies into links between womb conditions more than anything else concerning a a whole swathe of things concerning human behaviour. Things like sexuality. And failure to transmit genetic information does not lead to extinction of genetic material because as humans we don't just amass polypeptides as if genetic hoarders.

Moreover, their relationship to eachother is not individual whether in terms of the person who has them, or their relevance to the species.

Moreover it's blatantly wrong, even when we look at examples in nature ... because we find out by having said gay black swans more cygnets survived with greater genetic deviation than the individual genetic variation one black swan couple does not directly transmit onwards.

There is more genetic deviation in black swans because of those types of relationships than there would be without them. It's not as if there is some grandiose barrier to our genetic material that simply lay behind us. Most of us could quite easily die assuming a sufficiently balanced cull rate over area, and humans won't suddenly lose as if a treasure trove of genetic information. The idea that genetic survival is linear and predicated solely on the organism's agency to procreate rather than guarantee greater survival of things like, say, next of kin relationships is absurd.

It's not as if polypeptides exist only in a linear progression of time, and only if one organism passes them on. It could be any number of us that carry any number of shared genetic material.

160 years ago there were a billion of us ... we didn't accrue 7.34 times the amount of unique polypeptides since then. My DNA/RNA is not 7 times more complex or larger.

About the only really unique thing about my genome is I have an extra chromosome which is a non-inherited accident. It's almost as if our survival has never actually been predicated on you, yes you, pumping out kids. Because it says nothing about me helping out other people who might have died, and increasing total genetic variation that way.

You're right ... there is no teleology behind it. It's nonsense. But then again so is the idea of genetic survival being as if a personal quest to transmit genetic material. Animals clearly maintain vast means to guarantee their genetic survival and deviation by doing the opposite. By increasing survival rates as opposed to personal genetic transfer.

erttheking:
Oh, so you just think that trans issues isn't something that deserves a lot of attention. Ok. Gotcha. Well, you go ahead and consider the plight of minority that is one of the most horrifically abused in the United States is something that only deserves a little bit of attention and act like the Democrats should've just ignored the Republicans contributing to that abuse to focus on the "important" issues (because I guess you can't care about more than one thing at a time) and thinking that if the Democrats stopped focusing on trans people that the right would just leave them alone (A firm sign that you seriously have no idea how the right views trans people in this country, something I say as someone who has lived here my entire life) and that everything would just turn out if it didn't receive national focus? (because that worked out great for black rights. Jim Crow? Never heard of it)

Just making sure I got your viewpoint all wrapped up nicely. Because it seems like a horribly misinformed one. Trans people are horribly, horribly abused in this country, and the idea that their issues would go away if they're just ignore is one that doesn't have a single, diseased leg to stand on.

I personally believe that

1) the biggest driving factors behind racism, sexism and others -isms is lack - whether that lack is real or imaginary is secondary. If I believe there is not enough of something to go around (that not being limited to material things) I'm probably more likely to tread down and in that fashion make sure I get mine.

2) building upon that, I don't think humans are necessarily driven to tread downwards without that lack. Call me an optimist but for example I think people would be much more tolerant of trans people if they felt secure about their position in society.

Unfortunately our current system thrives on lack, thrives on creating it and when its impossible or impractical to do so sustains itself by creating an artificial, factually non existent version of it. If we want to tackle -isms or so called -phobias thats where we need to aim. Anything else is superficially scratching the surface and won't make a big impact in the long run.

I don't suggest that hatred for trans people will just go away if ignored and we let everything else carry on as is, I suggest that the effort we put into fighting transphobia is better invested in other places. And also that Western societies have experienced a massive increase in discontent over the past decades, in part driven by a drop in real spending power, an increasing gap between rich and poor (as has been proven time and time again, this will make any society angry irregardless of how high the living standards of the poor actually are), fear for one's existence, etc. These are the real culprits behind sharpened tone in political discourse, behind the frustrations that allow the more radical or militaristic wings on both right and left to grow in size, influence and volume. But what do they spend most of their time discussing? Immigration, refugees, trans rights, gay marriage, etc. The people profiting from the status quo are happy that they've successfully pulled the attention away from themselves and onto something else.

ErrrorWayz:
"To a certain extent, conservatives have always gone for soft targets" - Where as the left have always just hated Jews like Corbz and his Momentum chums?

Oh sure, the left hates Jews. Really hate them. Not like the right.. the right is an infinite wellspring of love for Jewish people. A literal, infinite wellspring..

https://youtu.be/zcoYKuoiUrY?t=42m18s

But don't worry, these are very fine people. Very fine people indeed.

But I'm already giving this pointless derailment more credit than it actually deserves. See, I know there are anti-semites on the left. I know there are sexists, racists and bigots of all varieties on the left. I even mentioned one example directly in my "bigoted and one sided" summary. Being left-wing doesn't automatically make you a good person, it doesn't automatically mean you care about the rights of anyone who isn't you, or about social justice.

Pointing this out to me doesn't even qualify as a comeback or rebuttal because it's not a counter to anything I've said. It doesn't hurt my feelings, because I'm not personally invested in the moral quality of any member of the political establishment. It's a bit strange, to be honest, that you would ever imagine or get the impression it would.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

I don't suggest that hatred for trans people will just go away if ignored and we let everything else carry on as is, I suggest that the effort we put into fighting transphobia is better invested in other places.

Or how about people recognize that transphobia is wrong, correct their morality and recognize a shared humanity? See ... you seem to be putting up artificial barriers between social problems, when really they're manifestations of greater social ills. It's amazing how when you stop problems, it makes associated problems disappear or easier to fight.

I mean I could clearly flip this argument around on ANY ISSUE YOU BELIEVE IN.

I could say; "You're worried about the working class? Well what about the environment? That planet we live on? That little orb called Earth that we exist on? How about you put aside your petty ideas of a fair wage and stopping rising homelessness where it belongs, and concentrate on the real issues here?"

Not exactly helpful. In fact, clinically retarded.

See, the thing about moral conduct is that lessons learned, and greater respect for others often lead to relatable issues being solved. It's like technology ... it's progressive. Einstein's ideas of quantum theory gave us LASERs. When we re-evaluate and recognize that there are moral conditions to act, we start to realize that there are just as applicable answers to be found through that wisdom than can allow us to move onwards.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

erttheking:
Oh, so you just think that trans issues isn't something that deserves a lot of attention. Ok. Gotcha. Well, you go ahead and consider the plight of minority that is one of the most horrifically abused in the United States is something that only deserves a little bit of attention and act like the Democrats should've just ignored the Republicans contributing to that abuse to focus on the "important" issues (because I guess you can't care about more than one thing at a time) and thinking that if the Democrats stopped focusing on trans people that the right would just leave them alone (A firm sign that you seriously have no idea how the right views trans people in this country, something I say as someone who has lived here my entire life) and that everything would just turn out if it didn't receive national focus? (because that worked out great for black rights. Jim Crow? Never heard of it)

Just making sure I got your viewpoint all wrapped up nicely. Because it seems like a horribly misinformed one. Trans people are horribly, horribly abused in this country, and the idea that their issues would go away if they're just ignore is one that doesn't have a single, diseased leg to stand on.

I personally believe that

1) the biggest driving factors behind racism, sexism and others -isms is lack - whether that lack is real or imaginary is secondary. If I believe there is not enough of something to go around (that not being limited to material things) I'm probably more likely to tread down and in that fashion make sure I get mine.

2) building upon that, I don't think humans are necessarily driven to tread downwards without that lack. Call me an optimist but for example I think people would be much more tolerant of trans people if they felt secure about their position in society.

Unfortunately our current system thrives on lack, thrives on creating it and when its impossible or impractical to do so sustains itself by creating an artificial, factually non existent version of it. If we want to tackle -isms or so called -phobias thats where we need to aim. Anything else is superficially scratching the surface and won't make a big impact in the long run.

I don't suggest that hatred for trans people will just go away if ignored and we let everything else carry on as is, I suggest that the effort we put into fighting transphobia is better invested in other places. And also that Western societies have experienced a massive increase in discontent over the past decades, in part driven by a drop in real spending power, an increasing gap between rich and poor (as has been proven time and time again, this will make any society angry irregardless of how high the living standards of the poor actually are), fear for one's existence, etc. These are the real culprits behind sharpened tone in political discourse, behind the frustrations that allow the more radical or militaristic wings on both right and left to grow in size, influence and volume. But what do they spend most of their time discussing? Immigration, refugees, trans rights, gay marriage, etc. The people profiting from the status quo are happy that they've successfully pulled the attention away from themselves and onto something else.

Unfortunately, the gap between the rich and the poor is only going to grow thanks to current politics, fueled by the very anti-other mentality you described, which is also fueled by the gap between the rich and the poor growing wider.

We live in a country of conservative people on welfare who voted for a bigoted millionaire with no intent to help them, because they hate the fact that minorities are also on welfare

It's a shame there wasn't a movement of like....the 99% of the people on the other side of the have-not side of the fence.

And it would suck if like....that movement was vilified by the very people they're trying to help because of how they looked or who they were.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Snip

Well I'm glad that you believe that. Except that has exactly zilch to do with the reasons why trans people get so much shit in the United States. So frankly, what you "believe" doesn't mean squat. This isn't religion where we debate on what we think might be happening, we know what's happening. Trans people get shit because they're viewed as freaks and perverts by people who have a limited or downright incorrect understand on how gender dysphoria works. Taking them out of the spotlight isn't going to change that, if anything it'll give people who consider them to be freaks and perverts better chances to abuse them without anyone being able to stand up to them. Your argument doesn't even make any sense. You think lack is the driving force behind isms. What is the lack in this situation?

The effort we put into fighting transphobia is better used elsewhere? Again. We are capable of caring about multiple things at the same time. I'm able to care about transphobia while also calling up the FCC to voice my concerns about Net Neutrality, generally protest Trump, be concerned about America's BS drug laws and quite a few other things. Also, the idea that Republicans would stop targeting trans people because the Democrats took the spotlight off of them is overly idealistic at best and lacking any basis in reality at worst. I can actually care about the gap between the poor and the rich, and I don't really buy the idea behind your conspiracy theory that the rich are deflecting all attention onto minority rights, namely because the battles and the persecution against these people was going on a long time before the modern wealth gap was a thing, and the common person's hatred in them has been around for just as long.

Also it sounds like you're saying that minorities need to just take their lumps because we can't help them and fix the wealth gap at the same time. Which is a load of horseshit, doubly so when minorities tend to be hit hardest by the wealth gap. They're discontent too. It really speaks a lot to me about how you really don't understand the situation when you act like minority rights and wealth inequality are separate things when, in reality, they're tied at the hip.

Also, if we were truly distracted from the wealth gap by caring about isms, Bernie Sanders would not have been so popular among the younger generation, particularly considering that the younger generations tend to care about isms more. Funny how that works. Millennials are the ones who care about isms, AND the wealth gap the most. Almost like they're not incompatible and one isn't a distraction from the other.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Secondly genetics is not the only thing passed, there's been more than a few studies into links between womb conditions more than anything else concerning a a whole swathe of things concerning human behaviour. Things like sexuality.

That's an old idea, a very, very old idea.. and like a lot of old ideas which keep coming back into fashion, I'm withholding judgement until the mechanism can be repeatably and reliably shown.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Moreover it's blatantly wrong, even when we look at examples in nature ... because we find out by having said gay black swans more cygnets survived with greater genetic deviation than the individual genetic variation one black swan couple does not directly transmit onwards.

I mean, this is still pretty basic isn't it. Those swans will share genetic information with the rest of their species, and in particular with other swans to whom they may be related. This kind of seemingly altruistic behaviour is a useful behavioural trait to be passed on because while the swans themselves might not reproduce the genes they share with other swans will still be transmitted. It doesn't matter if the children they raise were actually sired by them, it doesn't matter if they are the ones to reproduce themselves, so long as other swans pass on their information.

I mean, there are quite a few examples of social animals living in unrelated groups in which there is only a single breeding pair. Naked mole rats are probably the most extreme example because most individuals in the colony are actually sterile, and only become fertile due to hormonal changes triggered by dominance. The other mole rats aren't passing on their genes at all, they are simply there to support the colony, but they will share genetic information with the breeding pair, information which will be passed on through the children of said pair. Thus this trait is useful to the survival of the sterile rat's genes even though it doesn't aid in the individual chance of successful reproduction.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Most of us could quite easily die assuming a sufficiently balanced cull rate over area, and humans won't suddenly lose as if a treasure trove of genetic information. The idea that genetic survival is linear and predicated solely on the organism's agency to procreate rather than guarantee greater survival of things like, say, next of kin relationships is absurd.

You're correct. That is absurd. Fortunately, it's not what I said. As I've pointed out already, it's a thing I've repeatedly argued against as a misunderstanding of contemporary Darwinism.

Genetic survival is not the survival of the individual or even the individuals offspring. Those are completely expendable. It's the survival and transmission of the genes they carry which ensures those genes will be present in the next generation of animals, and which determines what is selected for. It doesn't matter which organism passes on the genes, and as you've pointed out there are huge advantages to altruistic behaviour in terms of ensuring the survival of offspring of your species (i.e. offspring who may carry similar genes).

It is still ultimately about the survival of those genes, because if those genes don't survive then the species doesn't survive, those lovely gay black swans don't survive to the next generation, those naked mole rats don't survive to the next generation. If their altruism was genuinely destructive or not conducive to passing on their genes, then those genes wouldn't still be around. Fortunately, it is. It absolutely is. Which is why we'll continue to get gay black swans and sterile naked mole rats.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked