So where is all this "low-cost propaganda"? If it's not Helen Mirren's speech, if it's not the bulk of #MeToo posts, if it's not the BLM knee-bending, or the the drag queen reading groups....

If we're to say all that is honest toil in the service of equality, then what's left to be your "low-cost propaganda"? — Isaac

It's all of those things. I wouldn't discount those as propaganda. I mean -- if it's in a newspaper it's probably propaganda, even. It's the media-form which has changed.

I'm not saying these are an honest toil in the service of equality. I'm directly answering your question. I don't think it's the fault of intersectionality, or Feminism, if that's what you're driving at.

Though that's different from persuading you that intersectionality is a Good Thing, too. I couldn't think of anything else to say on that account so dropped it, and went to directly answering your question. In some ways, though, it feels like the old debate between radicals on which problem is the most radical when the underlying concern was trans issues in public, to which I think Feminism is pretty clearly related even if I cannot make the case to your standard for it being related to concerns of international labor.

s the material conditions, only the material is tracked through the value form rather than through mass. People interact on the internet differently than they do in meat-space. But as the media grew -- as measured through the value form, again -- so our ways of interacting on the regular changed up to and including meat-space. — Moliere

That's very interesting, I can totally see how it could work that way. So, my question is what's the product? What is the result of this activity, this process? What does it output?

You say...

self-righteous moralism — Moliere

... no argument there. And...

low-cost propaganda set up with people ready to spread it like a virus. — Moliere

... again, I've no dispute with you on that score.

So where is all this "low-cost propaganda"? If it's not Helen Mirren's speech, if it's not the bulk of #MeToo posts, if it's not the BLM knee-bending, or the the drag queen reading groups....

If we're to say all that is honest toil in the service of equality, then what's left to be your "low-cost propaganda"?

That's not my callousness
...
Surely you are acquainted with the attitude I've laid out from your time as an activist? — Moliere

I'm not suggesting you agree with dismissing images of suffering that way. I'm saying that the exact same arguments can be made against modern identity politics, yet aren't. That fact that they aren't (whereas this world-weary shoulder shrug at the mention of poverty is common), is a significant fact - a matter in need of explanation.

I gave the example of a trans person (very hot topic right now). They're worth about a million dollars to a pharmaceutical company transitioning. Not worth a penny just wearing a dress and make-up. You don't think that gives the pharmaceutical company a huge financial interest in promoting this aspect of trans rights? Of course it does. But even mentioning this is absolutely toxic. It would be sufficient to have your work removed from publication, if not you banned for transphobia. Yet here you are casually making exactly the same type of comment about the charitable sector making money from exploitation of suffering, to absolutely no rebuke. Why is that?

I think it's naive in the extreme to ignore (in answering that question), the fact that most trans people are wealthy middle class westerners who, when it comes down to it, would rather keep their money than give it to the poor suffering children so heartlessly exploited by those mean NGOs.

The issue here is that this intersectionality works against the poor. It means that when Helen Mirren says what she says, instead of being horrified by her disgusting display of greed when others are starving, we actually sympathise with her as a victim of oppression. She gets a free pass on the gross property theft, because she's a woman, talking about 'women's rights'

Likewise with these other identity groups. They're acting as exculpatory devices, not progress but a means of stagnation.

"Feeling guilty about your luxury town house whilst others are homeless? No problem, as long as you're not a white male (bad luck if you are) you too can be a victim, then you don't need to do anything about the poor because everyone has to do something about your plight - poor you"

Again, if this is nothing but conspiratorial whinging, then simply point to the identity politics based campaign that has actually helped the poorest in our world. I'm all ears, ready to shown my error. Honestly, I mean it. I'm in this for the same reasons as you, I just want to get behind campaigns that actually work, but I see zero evidence that these do anything more than mildly benefit the already wealthy whilst sucking oxygen from any campaign actually trying to address poverty.

Women and trans people are included in the working class and proletariat. — Moliere

Yes, but their problems are different and not addressed by the campaigns supposed to represent them. Proletariat women and proletariat trans-folk have their relative oppression to deal with but more pressing is the lack of shelter, or enough money to buy food. The fact that some bourgeois Hollywood actress can now enjoy her million dollar photo shoot without fear of sexual harassment doesn't put food on the table. Try walking into an Indian clothing sweatshop and see if the (undoubtedly male) owners have been affected by the social approbation generated by the #MeToo movement. Tell you what might help there though. Is if the fucking actress we're all so concerned about would stop buying the Louis Vuitton clothing she's currently prancing about in on the cover of Vogue.

Again, it's simply naive to think that this is coincidence. That the only campaigns which receive any air time (from the bought and paid for conglomerate media) are the ones which have zero impact on the ever greedy consumer machine. "Equal pay for women, equal bathroom rights for trans,... Anything you like... just DON'T STOP BUYING!"

any workplace organizing I've done frequently runs into problems of both gender and race. So in practical terms it's required if one wants to do something about class, such as form a union or pull off a strike, because these identities will be utilized to divide your group otherwise. — Moliere

Exactly. Utilized by whom? Not the owning classes, they don't even need to get involved. As in...

The reason the left is weak isn't because we're different. It's because thems who own are good at divide-and-conquer. — Moliere

... just isn't true.

It wasn't the owning classes that split feminism over trans issues. It was trans campaigners who did that.

Suzanne Moore wasn't chased out of the Guardian by the CEO of Goldman Sachs, she was chased out by her fellow left-wing writers.

Kathleen Stock wasn't pelted with eggs by the Proud Boys. She was pelted with eggs by other left-wing activists who disagreed with her about trans issues.

Russell Brand (bless him!) wasn't vilified after his Jeremy Paxman interview by the Right-wing press. He was vilified by other left-wing voices (feminists) who objected to his use of the word 'bird'.

The progressive Vinay Prasad hasn't been hounded for his views about children's education during covid by Fox News. He was hounded by other progressives because they disagreed with him about masking policy.

Jeremy Corbyn wasn't kicked out of the Labour Party by the Koch empire. He was kicked out by other members of the Labour Party who disagreed with him about Israel.

The owning classes are, thus far, just leaning back in their leather-backed club chairs watching their opposition eat itself, they don't even need to lift a finger.

What to do about it given the attitudes of most people, though? — Moliere

Simple. Stop giving mass air time to trivial campaigns (don't stop the campaigns though, obviously), stop treating every difference of opinion over strategy as if it were defecting to the Nazis, and start campaigning on the stuff that really matters as a priority.

we need to be more intersectional. We need to listen to all women which includes listening to women of colour, working class women, trans women, disabled women and the list can go on. — The #MeToo

The list can indeed go on. So the question is, why doesn't it? Are there no oppressed men? Why does the list feel incomplete when it only contains the burdens of white women, but somehow complete once it's exhausted 'women' as a group? Once it's included intersections of race, class, sexuality and ability with women, we're apparently done with the list?

No. So we expand it out, to include men of colour, working class men, trans men, disabled men.

But then not all in these groups are oppressed, otherwise our list is just 'everyone on the planet' (the concatenation of those lists includes all people). So we say we're talking about oppressed women of colour, oppressed working class women, oppressed trans women, oppressed disabled women plus oppressed men of colour, oppressed working class men, oppressed trans men, oppressed disabled men.

That's a big group if we are to, as the author implores...

stand with each other — The #MeToo

So all we've done with our efforts to expand out our intersectionality, is rediscovered that the true common thread here is oppression - not gender, not race, not sexuality, not ability, not even class, but the mere act of oppression, the exercise of power over another to remove their opportunities or freedoms.

That last part is crucial. "...to remove their opportunities or freedoms". It means that victims of oppression will have neither in relation to non-victims. It means that victims of oppression are not hard to spot, they don't need proxy identifiers, they're the ones with less opportunity and freedom than most. Does that describe Helen Mirren? Someone who has less opportunity and freedom than most? Does that describe any of the Hollywood actresses in #MeToo? Does that describe, in fact, anyone living in the wealth and comfort of the western world's middle classes? People who have less freedom and opportunity than most? I don't see how anyone can honestly say it does.

Other aspects and questions related to the #MeToo Movement

Regarding Hollywood's power structure:

On 15 October, actress Alyssa Milano suggested on Twitter that anyone who had been "sexually harassed or assaulted" should reply to her Tweet with "Me Too", to demonstrate the scale of the problem. Half a million people responded in the first 24 hours.
A barrage of allegations has since emerged against high-profile men in entertainment, the media, politics, and tech. Many deny any wrongdoing. The repercussions are still in flux, but Hollywood's power dynamics have undoubtedly shifted.

That's less obviously true in the world beyond, and begs the question: What's different for the millions of ordinary people who shared their own #MeToo stories? Are the currents of the movement visible in their lives too? How far has the rallying cry been converted into real-world change?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44045291

Another relevant question to consider
#MeToo or #MenToo?
What are the implications of #MeToo for understanding current expressions of backlash and masculinity politics?

Since #MeToo took the Internet by storm in 2017, it has had transnational social and legal ramifications. However, there has been little research on the repercussions of this movement for the ways in which masculinity has been politicized as questions around its meaning and place in gender relations were brought to the forefront of public discussions. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from two Western Anglophone men’s groups, one embracing and one opposing feminist ideas. Our findings demonstrate a qualitative shift in contemporary expressions of “backlash” and “masculinity politics” in the #MeToo era compared to their initial formulations in the wake of the women’s and men’s movements of the 1960s to 1980s, shaped by novel tropes and tactics.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10608265211035794

An aspect of this is that I would expect the courage of women to tend to show up most strongly in defense of their offspring (and perhaps children in general). I think the trope of the human 'mama bear' fits well with this. Men I would expect to be more inclined to band together with other men, in defense of the whole social group. — wonderer1

This seems to be quite a narrow expectation of where 'courage' shows up. Especially, if we are talking about increasing social awareness of gender issues and the like. Of course, people will look to their own first and foremost. Survival of the fittest comes into it.
However, many women and men do not have or even desire offspring. Also, it's difficult to band together to deal with holistic and systemic structural inequalities and problems. Important issues perhaps not even recognised as undermining people's circumstances and abilities to progress. To fitness and wellbeing.

It takes courage to stand up for change. But even then, when a 'movement' [*] like #MeToo starts up, it can exclude significant others. The media tend to focus on prominent white women. Fair enough if it draws immediate attention but not good enough for those women who stand up but whose voices are unheard.

Overall, the #MeToo movement has raised consciousness of women’s sexual objectification on a global scale. But we still have a lot to learn. That is, we need to be more intersectional. We need to listen to all women which includes listening to women of colour, working class women, trans women, disabled women and the list can go on. We need to acknowledge the various forms of inequality and how they operate, intersect and reinforce each other. We must stand with each other, understand each other and speak out against all inequality in order to build a brighter and more equal society. As Kimberlé Crenshaw put it, “if we aren’t intersectional, some of us, the most vulnerable, are going to fall through the cracks”. — The #MeToo Movement: Intersectionality - Glasgow Women's Library

[*]

Sarah J Jackson, a professor of communication studies at Northeastern University, believes context is the key to anchoring Me Too.
"I wouldn't call hashtag 'Me Too' a movement at all," she says. "I would call it a campaign that is part of a larger movement. So I would call women's rights the movement, and feminism the movement. And I would say #MeToo is one indication of the sort of conversations that need to happen.

"The next step is, OK so now we know the problem - how do we as a global community expand this conversation?" — What has #MeToo actually changed? - BBC News

Boring essays and technical reports. — fdrake

Did you consider them boring when you wrote them? What made them so? Subject matter, style...?
Lack of choice or passion? But what now...?

Your writing here has been magnificent. Strong, sensitive, even sensible. Seductive and sexy as it
shines and probes; illuminating different or new ways of thinking, and questioning.
I'm surprised you haven't written an essay elsewhere.

Inspired and a bit fired up by your question re 'new femininity after patriarchy' I turned my attention to essays from the female perspective. Wondering if what matters is the way we talk and think. The importance of language in how the world can be changed. How useful would the terms 'femininity' and 'patriarchy' be in a new societal structure?

Anyway, this is only a fumbling start. I found this:
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20191216-essays-by-women-how-do-you-use-your-rage

Still sleepy, I read the title as 'How do you use your image?' and then thought:
Why 'rage'? Is it catchier than 'outrage'? Wouldn't that be a 'turn-off' for some?

The old adage ‘the personal is political’ is finding truly exciting new applications. The feminist women’s essays of 2019 combine stringent forensic analysis with fearless movement in and out of autobiography. The personal is elbowing its way rudely into the discourse, and altering the definition of being rude. In the process, new kinds of personhood are being created.

As Rebecca Solnit says in The Mother of All Questions, 2017: “There is no good answer to how to be a woman; the art may instead lie in how we refuse the question.”
[...]
Rebecca Solnit, who published the collection of essays Whose Story Is This? in 2019, has been a superb essay writer for decades, and is certainly one of the most eminent feminist writers alive. She has written on many subjects other than gender politics; she is an environmentalist, political activist, art critic, historian. She is a genuine public intellectual. One of her better-known essays is the sardonic Men Explain Things to Me (2008), which gave rise to the term ‘mansplaining’.

In 2019 Rachel Cusk published a collection of essays called Coventry, which spans about a decade of her work. Although she is arguably a literary giant, she has won few awards, probably because she very wilfully sidesteps categories.
[...]
Volume three was an unflinching look at the aftermath of divorce, truly a sidestep too far. She writes that what others call “cruelty” she calls “the discipline of self-criticism”. The third book got such an ugly response that she mused about her “creative death . . . I was heading into total silence”.
Almost mockingly, in the Outline trilogy, her latest set of books, she embraces silence and passivity. Faye, the anti-heroine of those novels, is like a radio dish, absorbing everything around her in what has been called ‘violent’ detail, and giving almost nothing back. This non-personality throws everyone around her into relief, and especially men, who cannot resist a feminine vacuum. Faye is no-one, but Cusk’s life is woven into her in playful ways. No more presenting an easy target. — Essays by women - 'How do you use your rage?' - BBC Culture

[my emphases]

There's so much more to this article including the journalists who broke the Harvey Weinstein story and helped catalyse the #MeToo movement. The ‘Non-disclosure agreements’ as a way to de-personalise female targets and stop them from telling their stories.

Reaching the end, I find the answer to my question above: 'Why 'rage' ?'.

Penguin this year reissued Sister Outsider, a collection of Audre Lorde’s essays. She described herself as a “Black, lesbian, mother, warrior, poet”, and firmly grounded her politics in personal honesty. Her strange, lyrical, visceral prose defines her as one of the gods of feminism and political activism.
In one of her essays she asks, “How do you use your rage?

The emphasis is on 'your'.
So, what is your story and how would you tell it? If at all...
The question can be answered by anyone, if so desired. To rage or not to rage?
Would it, does it help?

Look at the date of their accusations. October 2016. — NOS4A2

Yes, LOOK at the dates.

... his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1990 divorce litigation ...

She backtracked in October of 2016. Just a big coincidence?

Jill Harth

filed a lawsuit in 1997 in which she accused Trump of non-consensual groping of her body, among them her "intimate private parts"

As is typical, when others come forward those who thought they were alone speak out. You would do well to educate yourself on #MeToo. That 25 or more women accused Trump because he was a political target does not stand up to reason. Why Trump and not every political candidate? Your defense of Trump, trying to spin it as if he is the victim, is a callous disregard for the true victims of his abuse.

The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. — NOS4A2

Sure, but you were implying that her not knowing the year is evidence that she made it up. I'm simply giving you an example of how that's a non sequitur. People can forget which year traumatic events happen.

You can prove it in court. — NOS4A2

So could she, and she did, hence Trump being found liable.

Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone? — NOS4A2

Probably not, as I'd have no reason not to. But I can understand why someone wouldn't want to take someone to court for being sexually assaulted. I know a few people who have confided in being victimised in this way but who never reported it, myself included.

See also this.

Carroll replied that at the time, she was ashamed of what she alleges happened. She later added that she was mindful of Trump’s power and connections in New York and “didn’t think police would take me seriously.”

Research has repeatedly found that rapes and sexual assaults are among the types of violent crime least likely to be reported to police. An annual U.S. crime victimization survey found that less than 23% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported in 2021 and 2020, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

...

Carroll has testified that she spoke out because of the #MeToo movement, which gained prominence in 2017.

So again it's a non sequitur to infer that she's a liar.

If my Latin classes memories serve, Eros did end up mating with Psyche, the most beautiful girl in the universe, although she then reported him on Twitter, #metoo.

That is, no actual harm occurred, but some action can later be presented as abuse to a credulous movement (#metoo).

Being a woman is not sufficient reason to extend automatic belief. — Bitter Crank

Except that in this case it was proven in court that Depp assaulted Heard. Of course, political parasites like @karl stone will continue worshipping Depp and villifying Heard because for some reason the idea that women should be more open about sexual and physical abuse is too PC and threatening for them. Pretty disgusting. Also, pretty disgusting that Heard assaulted Depp too. The balance of evidence strongly suggests it was a mutually abusive relationship. Making either party out to be the exclusive victim here is wrong. Using this mutual celebrity self-destruction to smear innocent victims of abuse who dare to come forward under the banner of #metoo is doubly wrong.

Karl Stone has zero credibility left anyhow as he didn't even know Depp was found by the UK judge to have assaulted Heard. And that fact destroys his positioning. Or worse, he did know and lied in pursuit of his agenda. So, he's either woefully ignorant or a liar. And anyone who gives him oxygen for, what now given the facts is starting to smell like a misogynistic charade, is being foolish.

I am increasingly out of touch with pop culture, and I know nothing about Heard or Depp. I did read about the verdict. A plague on both their houses.

I suspect that a substantial portion of the celebrity 'abuse' cases (or cases involving very well known people, even if they aren't celebrities per se) are bogus. That is, no actual harm occurred, but some action can later be presented as abuse to a credulous movement (#metoo).

Being a woman is not sufficient reason to extend automatic belief.

For example, the Quarks that are supposed to be the building blocks of sub-atomic matter, "have never been observed empirically" (Science), but are inferred theoretically (Philosophy). Hence, I would say that Quarks & other hypothetical particles are meta-physical — Gnomon

I'm aware this topic enters into the whole realism vs anti-realism debate. I would still be careful in saying that the stuff posited by science is a metaphysical entity. We can of course debate if science is metaphysics or not. One can make a case that part of science is metaphysics, sure. But I wouldn't tell the physicist that I have special knowledge regarding his field.

Yet not all of them have any "substantive" effect on the material world, but may have "significant" effects on the human Mind (memes). Metaphysical questions are not resolved by practical experimentation, but only by philosophical argumentation, or mathematical calculation. — Gnomon

I largely agree on your last point here. Matter looks and feels substantial to us, which it is. But at bottom, it isn't. So we have two views on the nature of matter, our common sense conception of regarding tables and chairs and then we have what physics tells us about matter. This brings forth epistemological consideration on top of metaphysical ones.

I had severe mental cramps when I briefly studied that many years ago. Fodor's L.O.T. Language of Thought ! I have avoided it just as much as metaphysics. Until now. — Amity

It can be dense. And many aspects of Wittgenstein are difficult too. Nevertheless going back to Thomas Reid, one can see him discussing similar topics as Wittgenstein develops later on, in a pretty straightforward manner.

Also, listening or reading Chomsky's non-technical work and Bertrand Russell on many topics not limited to language, are useful in this regard. For philosophical matters, philosophy of language need not go beyond trying to be careful and clear and to not get stuck on a word or a phrase.

Wittgenstein says this nicely: "A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably." This can be interpreted in many ways, I take it to mean that we should avoid being held captive if we do not proceed with the way we are phrasing and/or thinking about a question.

As related to metaphysical questions and concepts of identity and self in social experience. What our categorisations of reality are based on. — Amity

Sure, there's truth in that. In Spanish we have pronouns for objects, which is weird if you think about it. In French too. I don't know how different my experience of the world is in one language vs another.

people in a position of marginalization are prevented from creating concepts, terms and other representational resources that could be used in order to conceptualize and understand their own experiences, especially those having to do with being in that position of marginalization — SEP: Feminist philosophy of language

Yes, when it comes to power, the issue of gender is clear-er to see.

And we've seen examples of phrases such as "Black Lives Matter" or "#MeToo", which have been quite useful in changing aspects of the society.

Israel has become a flashpoint for the left not just because of its subjugation of palestinians
but because its form of nationalistic democracy exemplifies the Enlightenment era liberal political self-identity that the West is trying to distance itself from via brutal self-critique. There is nothing quite so threatening to a person than witnessing a way of thinking in an other that they have themselves only recently struggled to free themselves from. This is a thread common to the intensity of. BLM, #Metoo and anti-Israel sentiment. Israel is us Westerners, the way we used to be, the way many of us still are ( Trump , Brexit supporters) . — Joshs

Good points! Yet, the escalation of the anti-Israel rhetorics requires additional explanation. I would like to bring my previous post that could help to understand why Israel keeps
attracting so much attention and hatred:
"It is worth clarifying how the debate in this thread is unfolding. There is one
side, so-called "pro-Israel," pointing out various dimensions and complexity of the ongoing conflict so that the achievement of peace would require patience and a trade-off. And there is another side, "anti-Israel," contending that Israel bears full responsibility for the existence and escalations of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Strikingly, these positions and arguments are similar to one of Zizek's outstanding examples of ideological blindness: "Let us examine anti-Semitism. It is not enough to say that we must liberate ourselves from so-called 'anti-Semitic prejudices' and learn to see Jews as they really ar - in this way we will certainly remain victims of these so-called prejudices. We must confront ourselves with how the ideological figure of the 'Jew' is invested with our unconscious desire, with how we have constructed this figure to escape a certain deadlock of our desire. The proper answer to anti-Semitism is therefore not 'Jews are really not like that' but 'the anti-Semitic idea of 'Jew' has nothing to do with Jews; the ideological figure of the ‘Jew’ is a way to stitch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system."
(Zizek,' The sublime object of ideology’). No, an "anti-Israel" protagonist is not necessarily an anti-Semite. But the ideological operative system here is similar to the Nazi anti-Semitic ideology in Zizek's sense. The grounding desire, an aspiration to immediately achieve the ultimate peace and justice, presupposes the evil ('sublime') object, invested with negativity and monstrosity. As a result, an ideological figure of 'Israel' has been constructed. 'Israel' has been labelled, demonized, and removed from civil discourse and the historical context. As Zizek points out, 'a pathological, paranoid construction' rejects objective facts and arguments. It employs them just for rationalizations and self-affirmations."

don't know why the world, or at least the Western world seems to care about this conflict so much more than larger ones. It seems to me that it is becoming just a proxy for the culture wars wracking America, and I can't say that I think that bodes well for the US or European powers being able to act as an arbiter for peace. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Don’t know if you saw my previous post:

Israel has become a flashpoint for the left not just because of its subjugation of palestinians
but because its form of nationalistic democracy exemplifies the Enlightenment era liberal political self-identity that the West is trying to distance itself from via brutal self-critique. There is nothing quite so threatening to a person than witnessing a way of thinking in an other that they have themselves only recently struggled to free themselves from. This is a thread common to the intensity of. BLM, #Metoo and anti-Israel sentiment. Israel is us Westerners, the way we used to be, the way many of us still are ( Trump , Brexit supporters) .

but because its form of nationalistic democracy exemplifies the Enlightenment era liberal political self-identity that the West is trying to distance itself from via brutal self-critique. There is nothing quite so threatening to a person than witnessing a way of thinking in an other that they have themselves only recently struggled to free themselves from. This is a thread common to the intensity of. BLM, #Metoo and anti-Israel sentiment. — Joshs

Hitler is a similar symbol, right? He would have been perfectly normal in years past. He became the new Satan because he was a turning point. American gave up on eugenics because of him. They began to see their own racism because of him.

I wonder if Israel is turning itself into Satan. That would be so ironic.

I will say this. Israel has become a flashpoint for the left not just because of its subjugation of palestinians
but because its form of nationalistic democracy exemplifies the Enlightenment era liberal political self-identity that the West is trying to distance itself from via brutal self-critique. There is nothing quite so threatening to a person than witnessing a way of thinking in an other that they have themselves only recently struggled to free themselves from. This is a thread common to the intensity of. BLM, #Metoo and anti-Israel sentiment. Israel is us black , Chinese or white Westerners , the way we used to be, the way many of us still are ( Trump , Brexit supporters) .

how can I put this, the burden of responsibilities to achieve a non discriminatory culture are not evenly distributed by an hysterically dictatorial victim-oppressor, identity politics paradigm. It divides people by identity, and creates antagonisms between them to exploit for political advantage. — counterpunch

Again is Black Lives Matter or #MeToo part of being woke? If it is not, then by definition being woke is extreme and will lead to the divisions you describe. If these movements are part of being woke, then not all of it is extreme, only a small and loud section of (mostly) college students.

The very fact that you seek to wash your hands of "more extreme elements" even after I've shown them taking hold in the public sector, in education and the NHS, demonstrates the problem. — counterpunch

And I said, there are already books being written about the problem, you're seeing pushback in culture too. Pinker, Dawkins, etc. are involved in these things. So are many other intellectuals, podcasters of all stripes, etc.

But of course big corporations and governments are going to side with this type of thinking. It costs them nothing and makes them look good.

But it's a very minor problem compared to, say, how Julian Assange is being treated. If we really cared about free speech, that might be more important than some misguided students.

Those are the more extreme aspects of it, sure. But is, for example, #MeToo or BLM an aspect that falls under the broad brush "woke culture"? Or in using the term "woke", we refer only to those people who do think that everything is sexist and racist?

Because if it's the latter, then it's true by definition that woke culture is mostly harmful.

If it isn't, then we need to separate the sensible from the irrational. Paying too much attention to the more extreme elements seems to me like adding fuel to the fire.

Note that you mention guilds. Those make perfect sense to me. That's peer review! That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. That's skill recognizing skill. My criticism of Direct Experience is not that it fails to gesture at something vague but important but that any kind of sociality needs more. — j0e

Religious/spiritual communities function like guilds. Religious/spiritual practices are intended to be taken up within the context of a religious/spiritual community.

On principle, doing things all on one's own, without any connection to a religious/spiritual community is possible, but such isolated approach is generally considered an exception, no the rule.

Also, it is not the case that people would flock together and build religious/spiritual communities based on having comparable direct experiences. Religious/spiritual life isn't a #MeToo kind of movement. Rather, people have some vague interest in some type of religion/spirituality, they join a group, a community, there, they get instructions for practices, they do the practices, and then they have "direct experiences". Which they can then compare, if they feel so inclined, or not.

That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. — j0e

I suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha
Do tell me what you think of it.

What do we make of elitist, esoteric 'knowledge' ? — j0e

It's, basically, what religion/spirituality is all about.

This weird culture has caused women to believe I was not romantically interested because of their looks or even race. My friends suggested I should say they look beautiful but their personalities are unattractive. As if that isn't damaging to someone's self-esteem. My Dad told me that humanity has moved from ethics to aesthetics and I can clearly see the dark side of it. And from experience I can tell the homosexual side of the story is not much better. The public #MeToo cases in Dutch media were primarily from men harassing other men. Welcome to the Netherlands.

Vive la différence, oui.

The French were initially baffled by #metoo because we invested quite a lot culturally onto the idea of romantic heterosexual love. Not that every single French national is romantic of course (or heterosexual for that matter) but it's a strong trope in the culture, which I think made us less able to see the harm done by men onto women in the name of "love".

Things are changing, I believe for the better, but still I doubt my nation will ever fully embrace the idea that men should wear lingerie, for instance. A less extreme perhaps example is that of the skirt for men and boys: there are men (and couture dons) who tried wearing the skirt but it's not gelling in the culture.

I actually wore a sort of skirt for a few weeks, and enjoyed it quite a lot. But I was in Somalia then, where men do wear sorts of skirts (a scarf wrapped around the waist) so I was just conforming to the local gender roles. It's great for hot weather... The breeze keeping your thing ventilated, that's priceless! So we're missing something. I guess the downside is a bone is harder to hide.

What was your mother like? Was she resentful about having to be a stay-at-home mom and not being allowed to pursue a career? — Todd Martin

Not at all - and growing up I often wondered why. But as an adult I recognised that both my parents were escaping their childhood, and together they built their ‘dream’ family life, despite never really experiencing such a thing themselves (my mother suffered ongoing sexual abuse as a child from two of her brothers and the family friend/priest she turned to for help - information she revealed for the first time as an 80 year old widow following the recent #MeToo movement). They were 100% committed to this shared vision of ‘family’, and to each other.

My point is that "speaking out" or "having an impact" may be a serious political trap unless we qualify these statements. I think the U.S. in particular has an ingenious political field which can create a powerful illusion of change and radical reform, while remaining perfectly within the confines of the status quo. This is another important point for Foucault, the productive element of power. — Giorgi

Precisely my thinking about #MeToo (and #TimesUp), which was largely a Hollywood thing. Surface changes made, but nothing structural. The victims remained victims, nothing much changed. — Kenosha Kid

:up:

Perhaps controversial, but the confinement of mass politics to discourse; politics as mass shitposting; isn't isolated to the US, UK, or even the political North. You can read the failure of the Arab spring uprisings and global climate strikes in the same context. Non-coordinated spontaneous disruption by an actor network is antithetical to any new institutionalisation of power by that network - the revolution's come to look like a corporate teambuilding event.

Even if it breaks shit, there's little to no plan. What comes in the space cleared by that breaking?

But I think no less than cultural trappings we should address explicit institutional trappings (perhaps this still falls within your definition of culture) — Giorgi

Absolutely.

I think the U.S. in particular has an ingenious political field which can create a powerful illusion of change and radical reform, while remaining perfectly within the confines of the status quo. — Giorgi

Precisely my thinking about #MeToo (and #TimesUp), which was largely a Hollywood thing. Surface changes made, but nothing structural. The victims remained victims, nothing much changed.

Foucault suggests to engage in Parresia a type of courageous talk, which forms part of techniques of self-discipline offered by the Stoics and Romans as a way to resist the order of things and live a more rewarding life, independent of institutional coercion. I just wanted to reach out to everyone with similar interests and see if we can spark a small discussion. — Giorgi

There's a lot of buzz about courageous talk now, e.g. #MeToo. It's been effective to an extent, and within positions of power.

I recall Colin Firth publicly berating himself for knowing about Weinstein and not speaking out against it. And that for the most part seems to have been the case: the people who spoke out were the victims. Why did so few who knew support them? Probably related to the fact that the would-be victims who resisted still don't have careers. No one's talking about the new Mira Sorvino movie, and she's an Oscar winner.

There is, or was, a campaign to get men to protest their own friends' misogynistic behaviour. I doubt that's fared much better, but I hope it had some impact. My feeling is that the majority of people prize validation from their peers more than they prize their own authenticity.

The danger as I see it falls in distinguishing that authenticity from the trappings of one's culture, which might be good, bad, or arbitrary. Foucault champions asserting one's truth at the risk of being a pariah within one's peer group. But the benefit of having a peer group is that it might temper bad apples. We only have to look west and back a few years to see how bad actors can emerge from the underground once bad actions are legitimised.

Appeals to one's sovereignty are always at odds with, or at least perpendicular to, our moral duties, which concern our own behaviour within a social group. The right balance of challenging the behaviours of others and challenging one's own beliefs seems like the win-win to me.

Even in Bostrom's simulation argument, neither brains nor minds are TMs: in that argument, — A Raybould

If the word simulation means something other than computation, you need to state clearly what that is; and it has to be consistent either with known physics; or else stated as speculative physics.

I'll agree that Bostrom and other philosophers (Searle included) don't appear to know enough computability theory to realize that when they say simulation they mean computation; and that when they say computation they must mean a TM or a practical implementation of a TM. If not, then what?

When we simulate gravity or the weather or a first person shoot-'em-up video game or Wolfram's cellular automata or any other simulation, it's always a computer simulation. What other kind is there?

And when we say computation, the word has a specific scientific meaning laid out by Turing in 1936 and still the reigning and undefeated champion.

Now for the record there are theories of:

* Supercomputation; in which infinitely many instructions or operations can be carried out in finite time; and

* Hypercompuation; in which we start with a TM and adjoin one or more oracles to solve previously uncomputable problems.

Both supercomputation and hypercomputation are studied by theorists; but neither are consistent with known physical theory. The burden is on you to be clear on what you mean by simulation and computation if you don't mean a TM.

I (or, rather, what I perceive as myself) is a process (a computation being performed), and what I perceive as being the rest of you is just data in that process. — A Raybould

But what do you mean by computation? Turing defined what a computation is. If you mean to use Turing's definition, then you have no disagreement with me. And if you mean something else, then you need to clearly state what that something else is; since the definition of computation has not changed since Turing's definition.

To confuse a process (in either the computational sense here, or more generally) with the medium performing the process is like saying "a flight to Miami is an airplane." — A Raybould

I have done no such thing. I don't know why you'd think I did. A computation is not defined by the medium in which it's implemented; and in fact a computation is independent of its mode of execution. I genuinely question why you think I said otherwise.

If you agree that you and I are "processes," a term you haven't defined but which has a well-known meaning in computer science with which I'm highly familiar, then a process is a computation. You can execute Euclid's algorithm with pencil and paper or on a supercomputer, it makes no difference. It's the same computation.

A computation is distinct from the entity doing the computation (even if the latter is a simulation - i.e. is itself a computation - they are different computations (and even when a computation is a simulation of itself, they proceed at different rates in unending recursion.)) — A Raybould

You're arguing with yourself here. I have never said anything to the contrary. A computation is independent of the means of its execution. What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

I recognize that this loqution is fairly common - for example, we find Searle writing "The question is, 'Is the brain a digital computer?' — A Raybould

Searle also, in his famous Chinese room argument, doesn't talk about computations in the technical sense; but his argument can be perfectly well adapted. Searle's symbol lookups can be done by a TM.

And again, so what? You claim the word simulation doesn't mean computation; and that computation isn't a TM. That's two claims at odds with reality and known physics and computer science. The burden is on you to provide clarity. You're going on about a topic I never mentioned and a claim I never made.

And for the purposes of this discussion I am taking that question as equivalent to 'Are brain processes computational?" - but, as this quote clearly shows, this is just a manner of speaking, — A Raybould

But a computation is a very specific technical thing. If I start going on about quarks and I say something that shows that I'm ignorant of physics and I excuse myself by saying, "Oh that was just a manner of speaking," you would label me a bullshitter.

If you mean to use the word computation, you have to either accept its standard technical definition; or clearly say you mean something else, and then say exactly what that something else is.

and IMHO it is best avoided, as it tends to lead to confusion (as demonstrated in this thread) — A Raybould

I'm not confused. My thinking and knowledge are perfectly clear. A computation is defined as in computer science. And if you mean that we are a "simulation" in some sense OTHER than a computation, you have to say what you mean by that, and you have to make sure that your new definition is compatible with known physics.

and can prime the mind to overlook certain issues in the underlying question (for example, if you assume that the brain is a TM, it is unlikely that you will see what Chalmers is trying to say about p-zombies.) — A Raybould

I understand exactly what Chalmers is saying about p-zombies now that I re-acquainted myself with the topic as a result of this thread.

But you're going off in directions.

What do you mean by simulation, if not a computer simulation? And what do you mean by a computation, if not a TM?

To me, Searle's first version of his question is little more than what we now call click-bait. — A Raybould

Whatever. I'm not Searle and he got himself into some #MeToo trouble and is no longer teaching. Why don't you try talking to me instead of throwing rocks at Searle?

frank
4.9k
↪Baden This is Linda Hirshman with a fuck-ton more interest in the question than you'll ever have.

From the NYT


"I’ll vote for Mr. Biden this fall.

I won’t say it will be easy. I have been writing on and agitating for women’s equality since “The Feminine Mystique” came out in 1963. I know how supposedly “liberal” men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. I am unimpressed by their lip service to feminism, their Harvard degrees or their donations to feminist causes.

In 1998, I was one of a few establishment feminists to argue on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, when the unofficial representative of the movement, Gloria Steinem, threw her under the bus in the pages of The New York Times to protect Bill Clinton. I maintained my position until, two decades and a #MeToo movement later, Ms. Steinem issued a non-apology for the essay. So I hate, hate, hate to say the following.

Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.

All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden."

She says dispense with the "gotcha" you chimps. — frank

Thank you, Frank, and my thanks to Linda Hirshman.

How these geniuses think the transition to someone else would not be political suicide is beyond me.

In any case, Joe Biden has been a pragmatic, intelligent, reasonable guy for his entire career. I not only will vote for him...I will do so with pleasure and enthusiasm.

This is Linda Hirshman with a fuck-ton more interest in the question than you'll ever have.

From the NYT


"I’ll vote for Mr. Biden this fall.

I won’t say it will be easy. I have been writing on and agitating for women’s equality since “The Feminine Mystique” came out in 1963. I know how supposedly “liberal” men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. I am unimpressed by their lip service to feminism, their Harvard degrees or their donations to feminist causes.

In 1998, I was one of a few establishment feminists to argue on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, when the unofficial representative of the movement, Gloria Steinem, threw her under the bus in the pages of The New York Times to protect Bill Clinton. I maintained my position until, two decades and a #MeToo movement later, Ms. Steinem issued a non-apology for the essay. So I hate, hate, hate to say the following.

Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.

All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden."

She says dispense with the "gotcha" you chimps.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/weinstein-sentenced-to-23-years-for-sexual-assaults/ar-BB111rZq?ocid=spartanntp

NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein was sentenced Wednesday to 23 years in prison for rape and sexual assault, a sight the disgraced Hollywood mogul's multitude of accusers thought they would never see.

Both women confronting Weinstein again in court Wednesday after their testimony helped seal his conviction at the landmark #MeToo trial.

Apparently there were as many as 90 accusers, with him being convicted on two counts of predatory sexual assault, while avoiding the more serious charge of 1st degree rape.

I expect to hear the trial and conviction becoming 'politicized' within a very short time; any thoughts or comments?