Funny how if these people were consistent about this, it would mean that the allies couldn't bomb Germany or Japan during WW2, because that would be collective punishment & there were civilians in those countries who didn't want war & had no choice.
So the Axis powers would win.
The point being, total avoidance of "collectivized punishment" is literally impossible if you define "collectivized punishment" as "political action that has negative outcomes for a group of people." Raising taxes & cutting benefits are both "collectivized punishments" for groups
Avoid "collectivized punishment" enough & you won't have a country. Hence this stance is deployed selectively. In the Post War Order, it mostly means avoiding policies with negative outcomes for minority groups, while policies with negative outcomes for the majority is allowed.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I touched on in another tweet, the Post-War Order's 2 moral imperatives (derived from being as unlike the new secular Satan, Nazis, as possible) were prioritizing minorities above majorities & to prioritizing individual autonomy over collective good.
The 1st overrode the 2nd.
It was inevitable that the 1st would override the 2nd, for multiple reasons, including that it's more emotional & visceral, individual autonomy is inherently self-weakening, & only the West believed in the 2nd imperative while both West & East believed in the 1st.
@CorenLaVolpe Does that sum it up well enough? Can't comment on the original thread.
To really properly answer these, we have to look at the time period where we were closest to having this happen. That's probably the 1970's.
To be blunt, the reason has more to do with drastically different social structures of the 2 "perpetrator minority groups" than anything.
The US had a ton of "de-policing" and "soft on crime" policies and intelligentsia culture in the 70's. It was actually worse than the Woke era in this regard. With no internet, they could get away with far more. The movie Dirty Harry was a reaction to this.
The Civil Rights movement was winding down, & black activism was taking a more militant turn. Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther, wrote the book "Soul on Ice" in prison. He describes his past as a "rape insurrectionist" who wanted to wage sexual war on white women.
Christianity has been in decline as a political and social force for basically the entire 20th century. Heck, it had already started in the mid-19th, hence Nietzche's observations.
After WW2, its true replacement finally arrived: The Post-War Consensus.
Woke is a schism of that.
The Post-War Consensus developed pretty much entirely as a reaction to the Nazis. Hence its obsession with minority rights & protections (even at the expense of the majority), and individuality & personal choice (even if they enable exploitation or cause total societal collapse).
Woke just places intense emphasis on the former while de-emphasizing or outright rejecting the latter. It takes the Post-War Consensus & makes it illiberal. Post-War Consensus liberals won't or can't deal with it, so woke is supplanting them, in churches, govt, etc.
This thread is full of leftists acting like they're having some kind of revelation about Woke working exactly how it was obviously designed to work.
Hear me out, maybe the "epistemic pitfall" wasn't a pitfall, because being racist against white people, for example, WAS THE POINT.
Also LoL at Pot of Greed guy replying w/ the exact same thing OP is talking about. "Racism against white people was an excuse for MISOGYNY." Except it was mostly used by "women of color."
These people fundamentally haven't changed, they're just recalibrating the oppression stack.
Wokies weren't "doing something else." They wanted to be racist against white people, sexist against men, etc, (also commit theft) & they shored up an enforcement system that if you criticized them for it, they'd ostracize & punish you. That's it. That's the movement.
The pairs up with a left wing behavior that is extremely prevalent and noticing should be commonplace:
"We say what we want to be true like it's a fact and act like it's fact, no matter how untrue it is."
What has happened with "incel" is this tendency ran into semantic drift because the useful idiots picked it up without knowing that the emperor is naked & everyone is just pretending his suit is beautiful.
Useful idiots in this case being midwit and sub-midwit feminists.
When you point out that "incel" Matt Walsh is married with kids, the trans trash left irony bro (who's just the physical incarnation of slave morality) will suggest his wife doesn't sleep with him anymore. The midwit feminist says incel is an attitude, not about sex.
This (the screencapped tweet) is such a dishonest framing of what happened. They weren't measuring the length of those women's swimsuits cause dudes would get boners if it was 1/4 inch short. They set a concrete, objective standard.
People push up on the standard to destroy it.
So the ladies who want to push the boundaries wear something that's just a liiiittle shorter than the standard. The people who want no standard say, "Isn't this ridiculous?" Then it gets a little shorter. A little shorter.
Deconstruction to nothing by inches. We've all seen it.
Eventually we're too a point that the original people in the picture, even most of the ladies, probably, would consider absurd. A slippery slope "fallacy."
"Of course women aren't going to walk on the beach in a micro-thong & demand men don't get aroused! That's a strawman!"