Hello my fellow Ultra Normative Dudes*, this moment in history can feel like an overwhelming time because everything — race, gender, sexuality, class — feels like it's blowing up and we have to do a bunch of Processing Of Big Issues every 30 minutes. That is correct!
It is correct because those different axis have been pretty consistently trash-firey for a lot of people for a long time, but the cultural value of Keepin' The Normalcy Flowin' has always been high, and they were encouraged to Keep It To Themselves Or Be Branded Troublemakers.
Sometimes somebody (or a cluster of somebodys!) would stand up and say, "You know what, this thing is bullshit" and there would be a cultural moment and we (Ultra Normative Dudes) would get big eyes and say, "Holy shit, that's awful. Wow."
But now it feels like the floodgates are open, right? It's not just one hashtag! It's like, a new thing every week. A new group of people saying, "You know what, this awful thing we've had to stay tight-lipped about to keep our jobs or our health or whatever, it's bullshit."
And it is bullshit. It's complete bullshit. It is exhausting for us Ultra Normative Dudes because for the most part the "bill" of having to think about the bullshit every day when we wake up or walk outside or go to work or try to get groceries? We haven't had to deal with it.
I mean, we COULD if we WANTED to but nobody was MAKING us and we could just go about our day if it got to be too much. It was just a matter of stopping listening to the angry person or muting the hashtag or saying, "Whew, that is awful and exhausting. I paypal'd some to help."
But the bullshit still keeps accruing when we aren't looking at it, and interest piles up, and the people who HAVE to pay their bill every day because the abusive bullshit is dumping straight on them? This moment seems to indicate a critical mass saying, "Yeah, fuck THAT."
And suddenly Ultra Normative Dudes like us have to deal with a new revelation of really awful Bullshit around every corner, in every subculture we're part of, in every niche community we go to for refuge.
The only solution is to listen to the people saying, "That's it, this is enough" and listen to how they say these places and spaces can be made better and cleaned out. Because if we just say, "Wow, that IS awful" and then take a breather before the next one?
The bullshit keeps adding up. And interest keeps accruing. And the people who don't have the luxury of closing the tab and going off to somewhere Without All These Problems™? They're going to keep getting ground down by it while we "recharge" and "focus on work" or whatever.
It's overwhelming right now *because we haven't paid the bullshit bill*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading the appendix of 1984, Orwell's in-universe essay on the history of Newspeak is interesting and illuminating. In particular, it reveals the misunderstandings inherent in reactionary objections to "academic" language as Newspeak.
What I mean is that we often find reactionaries objecting to unfamiliar language (say, pronouns, or "something-something-Americans", or nuanced definitions of the word 'racism') and saying that it's "Orwellian Newspeak."
But that misunderstands quite a bit: both the purpose of specialist/academic language, the way meaning is added to language when words develop new uses, and what the *nature* of Newspeak was in 1984.
Years ago, I was brought on as tech advisor to a company building out something along these lines (social engagement, not “watching movies,” but still.) These efforts usually just burn money until investor patience runs out, because engagement arbitrage is hard and competitive.
Underneath all the hand waving it’s an attempt to create an economy: users do a thing to get tokens, which they can use to buy a thing, and advertisers pay you a premium to fund the tokens in exchange for highly instrumented access to the users.
The question is always, ultimately, “what premium do you have to charge over ‘normal’ advertising and thing-obtaining costs to make your role in this economy profitable? Do you deliver enough value to both parties that they will bother using you as a middleman?
@SethCotlar A digital pointer that holds information about an asset that exists somewhere else, and whose “ownership” is tracked by a big network of other computers.
@SethCotlar That’s the technical part; the complexity and stupidity is in what happens based on that, and the unfounded assumptions that get layered on top of the technical baseline.
@SethCotlar Like: Some people pay money to other people to get them to announce a “transfer of ownership” for a given token on that big network… and assume that means they own the thing the token “points” at. It’s a bit like “owning” the bit.ly link to a NYT article.
So, a cryptocurrency business was rolled for $30m. Thing is, it wasn't "hacked;" Someone just found an edge case in the code that defines the 'smart contract' inherent to the business model, and used it to "trade" a few Mono tokens for millions of dollars, draining their funds.
What I find interesting is that it illustrates the dangers of an article of faith in cryptocurrency: "there is no law but the contract, and that is good because the contract is unambiguous, executable code."
One of the more nuanced breakdowns of Bari Weiss' career arc, from John Ganz' The Political Economy of Reaction. johnganz.substack.com/p/the-politica…
Reminds me of a side conversation we had with @danieleharper and @_Jack_Graham_ on @idsgpod, in reference to Weiss' membership in the ~Heterodox Opinion Havers Society~. Ganz compares Bari and her fellow-travelers to the losers of 18th c Paris' crumbling linterary class.
I don't know enough about the history of the era to assess Ganz' comparison in detail, but I think there's something to be said for the theory that ostensibly diverse figures like GG, Tucker, Bari, and others desire both radical chic AND establishment security.
It's impressive how densely packed these two tweets are with the language and social cues of abusive Christian fundamentalism.
For those who don't recognize them, Moore here is obliquely responding to the "exvangelical" movement that's been blossoming over the past few years.
I can't say whether the movement is *numerically* significant or not, but it's certainly had a social and cultural impact: people, many of whom experienced religious abuse and trauma in authoritarian spiritual communities, are leaving *and talking about why*.
This has thrown certain fundamentalist systems of control into a tailspin, like a referees trying to give someone a penalty because they quit the game. Matt's opening statement acknowledging "bad experiences" is a weak concession to keep potential exvangelicals on the field.