Thread by @PnictogenHorses

how does the locked-in rigidity of the social structures established by #Christianity and #capitalism play out on an *individual* level? face-to-face, person to person?

Western society applies the values of *social dominance* to individual interactions and conversations.

(1/x)

https://twitter.com/PnictogenHorses/status/1611610329632616449

the central principle is very simple: whenever two people interact, one of the two is *socially superior*, and the other is *socially inferior*. person A, interacting with person B, is in some unspoken way "better" than person B: they are the *socially dominant party*.

(2/x)

there's an unspoken ranking, or value of social credit, attached to every single person in Western society; this social-credit score might be thought of as equivalent to an Elo ranking in #chess--a single number that ranks *all chess players* from superior to inferior.

(3/x)

the premise (a false one, by the way) is that the Elo score, because it's derived from arithmetic calculations from the results of games, is somehow an "objective" measure of the chess player's overall quality, based on the false assumption that the playing field is level.

(4/x)

incidentally, #computer gaming nerds of the @ID_AA_Carmack / @antoniogm sort have appropriated Elo ratings and applied them to professional game competitions--yet *another* venue that maintains the illusion, but not the reality, of a level playing field.

(5/x)

in reality, both in #chess and in video #gaming, there's rigid control and social hierarchy applied to the playing field: only *certain players*, matching desired social criteria, get chances at elite competition. chess goes the whole length of excluding almost all women.

(6/x)

a few token women--the Polgar sisters, Hou Yifan, some others--who are generally forbidden from competing against elite male #chess players are sometimes invited to tournaments that otherwise are men-only. these few women otherwise are confined to their own inferior class.

(7/x)

this is grossly unfair, hopelessly biased; best performance against elite #chess players is only possible if you've been allowed to play large numbers of games against them, so that you're *prepared*. the token women players at elite tournaments don't get these chances.

(8/x)

and yet bigoted nerds of the @ID_AA_Carmack / @JeffDean / @antoniogm variety habitually pretend that these segregated and biased systems of both #chess competition and video #gaming are a "meritocracy": if women do badly, that proves they're *intrinsically inferior*.

(9/x)

these same bigots, and all their kindred in the #conservative movement and @GOP politics and the intensely bigoted cultures of #business and #finance and #technology and everywhere else, think the same way about just about ANY sort of numerical value attached to a person.

(10/x)

it's not just @charlesmurray or @EPoe187 or @ID_AA_Carmack who pretends desperately that @OfficialSAT scores aren't garbage--testing mere rote memorization and speed, and trivially easy to bias with repetition and money--it's most of Western culture.

(11/x)

"I have a high number of dollars / lines of code / SAT points / high school club memberships / professional certifications / whatever. that PROVES I'm a better person than you." that's the general method of @charlesmurray &c.; it really is *that* simple-minded and basic.

(12/x)

it's to be stressed, however, that while high numbers (of ANY sort) are used as "proof" of social dominance, they are not the *source* of dominance. really they're more like...excuses, or rationalizations. ultimately, social dominance is merely *asserted*, and unspoken.

(13/x)

if you're socially dominant, in Western conversation, that means you get to walk all over the other person. you can break promises, bark out orders, call them by the wrong name (or pronouns), treat them to racist jokes--anything goes. social dominance means *impunity*.

(14/x)

in particular, social dominance means that you're not obliged to explain yourself or your words to an inferior.

the premise is that person B, the social inferior of person A, is surely too weak and stupid to grasp the "nuanced" reasons behind A's words and decisions.

(15/x)

@elonmusk, for example, considers himself the social superior not merely to @mtaibbi or @WholeMarsBlog, but to everyone else. Musk feels zero obligation to be honest with Matt Taibbi, or to explain himself to Matt Taibbi, or even to be *polite* with Matt Taibbi (or me.)

(16/x)

in a similar way, @mtaibbi feels zero obligation to be honest or forthcoming or polite to me, or to most human beings.

now here's a little secret about this system of social dominance: @mtaibbi probably imagines that he's actually *superior* to his paymaster, @elonmusk.

(17/x)

that's the way of Western society, which is stuffed to bursting with frustrated monarchs-in-waiting: @mtaibbi is much poorer than @elonmusk, has much less power, and is much less likely to be remembered when gone...but Taibbi likely thinks he's really the more deserving.

(18/x)

this is likely true of most of @elonmusk's current gang of conspirators--@bariweiss, @ShellenbergerMD, @lhfang, @AbigailShrier, @Timcast, @stillgray, and the other folks who've been acting like Musk's best buddies.

some or all of them think: "I'm better than this chump."

(19/x)

the practical reality of the situation between @mtaibbi &c. and @elonmusk, however, is that Taibbi needs to defer to Musk, who's the one with the fame and money and power.

Musk is dominant; Taibbi is submissive, under duress, and one suspects that the position *itches*.

(20/x)

I speak speculatively, of course; for all I know @mtaibbi and @elonmusk are in fact close and loving friends, in which case I'm happy for them both: friendship is a rare commodity in Western society, which prioritizes cruelty and grinding inferior parties under bootheels.

(21/x)

I could go on in this vein a bit but I trust I've made my point: the consequences of believing in rigid social hierarchy, one in which everyone is supposed to "know their place", are constant squabbles over who's socially dominant or inferior. the system is "competitive".

(22/x)

it *needs* to be: because the social systems of #capitalism and #Christianity are so rigid, practically the only way to move upwards is by *destroying* the career of someone in the rank immediately above yours, so that you can take their place.

~Mona Drafter of Pnictogen

@threadreaderapp unroll

@UnrollThread