In general this article is some good ore. Today I want to work with the dross.
"exactly as the stigma against incest allows for the physical and emotional freedom of a family."
This is "conservative" Fascism.
A principle of obversion: if the stigma allows X, then lack of stigma prevents X. But, does it? In any conceivable situation, should the stigma vanish, the stigma would immediately reappear. It is no mere social stigma but a strong biological reflex. "The stigma against pain allows you to take your hand off a hot stove." This "conservative" is in fact a social constructivist. A fanatical nurture fundamentalist.
If you're a social constructivist, then why not simply construct a list of social rules where incest is allowed and doesn't block certain familial relations? Man is a Rational Animal, I'm told. He doesn't bow to silly things like fleshy biological imperatives. "Without a stigma against pain, having your hand on a hot stove wouldn't hurt." If Man is disturbed by certain actions, simply tell him there's no good reason to be disturbed, and He will stop. "Stoves can be perfectly safe for everyone (especially children) if only we can get rid of the stigma against pain and injury." Right? Right.
This "conservative" is doomed to lose rhetorically to the devout Regressive.
They say the Overton window and framing is a problem. In a sense, it is. The problem is that "conservatives" wholeheartedly accept the foundations of the Fascist world view. They do not want to escape the Regressive frame.
It's a bit weird that Regressives commit fallacies and use tricks so often, since it's wholly unnecessary. Trapping "conservatives" in their frame isn't a scam or a grift, it's where "conservatives" like to hang out when left to their own devices. The Regressive can defeat the "conservative" in debate all the time, every time, using nothing but the "conservative's" own positions.
Because the author is no rightist at all, but a less-left Regressive, ultimately he is unable to critique Regressivism sharply, harshly, or even consistently. He's ontologically committed to defeat. He always has to make room for his own Regressive commitments and impulses. He is, fundamentally, compromised.
I am perhaps relieved that the compromised consistently lose to the less-compromised.
The intolerant minority wins? Then, should the holders of truth compromise with dishonourable liars? I think not. I rather think not.
P.S. Let's get rid of the "stigma" against mental illness. Crazies only insufferable because you prefer health to sickness and failure, you damn bigot. There's nothing wrong with thinking wrong thought, right? Right.
P.P.S. Much as the stigma of incest is hard-wired, you will likewise never see hot chicks regularly walking down the street naked. Certain Regressives are likely to pursue both rules, but it's not going to work. Sure you get slutwalks but A) they're desperate, not attractive and B) it's called slutwalk because only sluts go. They tried to reclaim "gay" but now it's hate speech. They tried to reclaim ninja and you can see how that went. Sluts are slutty, and that's never going to be a high-status trait.
"They tried to reclaim ninja and you can see how that went."
not familiar with this reference
Think about it and take a guess. (Don't post the guess.)
Post a Comment