Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Rly we need the details and positions held during these arguments if this thread is to be any more than 'i talked to a bad man and another bad man' response 'oh no u talked to a bad man oh no'

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

Mostly this, although I've also heard some of them from ppl who were not young or white or dudes.

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

― mh, Monday, July 1, 2013 10:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yah, not sure what exactly is novel about "creepy liberals"

xp

@ darraghmac - I know, and my inability to supply more details kind of undercuts my question. I mean I can't even be sure I'm not remembering a strawman.

@ how's life - I wasn't in favour of sharia law at the time. It was more that of all the ways one might criticise it, this person's seemed to have something a bit odd about it.

but now you are in favor of sharia law, right?

Yeah, I knew what you were saying. I was just fucking around. xp

xp Well, the mu'atizil school of ethics is interesting, but I can only access their ideas in translation

Screw my spelling today. It's Mu'tazilah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazila

gbx otm. liberals are often creepy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThrZ9-sS6aM

Conservatives, who twist liberal concepts to benefit their own goals.

this sort of bad faith argument is so common on the right i wish it had a name. the general strategy is almost a reductio ad absurdum in which, say, some concept of fairness that leads the left to things like affirmative action is then the same idea that leads conservatives to decry affirmative action as "discriminatory." ("Blacks are the real racists because they talk about race so much," is another favorite one.)

the irony to all this is that it's an absolutely self-defeating gesture because while it's intended to push back against some imagined liberal hegemony, it's instead parasitic on it--there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism. you could almost say it takes place within the assumptions of liberalism in that notions of "social justice" and fairness are equally central but "twisted" into a parody version of themselves. i guess this is what happens when conservatism is unmoored from anything like tradition and replaces it with radical individualism/autonomy (ie, freedom from society).

there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism

This is v. interesting

it's an overstatement, but i think it applies at least in part to the "media" version of conservatism (talk radio, NRO, etc...)

this is what i'd describe as football fan politics, more akin to cheering for a nebulous team, right or wrong, and it definitely has a leftist equivalent

Definitely. The bad faith characterisation aspect too.

just came across an interesting passage from Aldous Huxley who defines being a partisan as "egotism at one remove"--a mechanism which allows you to indulge in just about any vice and call it virtue.

there's also a strong element of the coopting of weighted language -- there are phrases that are commonly used, such as "gun control," which are relatively useless when used as intended because they bring up the baggage attached by groups against the concept

or, god help us, what people think "feminism" means

when the right invokes 'free speech' or 'racism' to undermine a common leftist position/belief, is that analogous in any way to the left evoking 'security' as a reason why eg the united states shouldn't use drone strikes. (bc they're undermining their own security by radicalizing more terrorists.) in both cases these aren't ideals that are generally associated w/ the political side and you suspect that maybe they're only being brought up as ideological concern trolling.

i think it's fair game to address an opposition position and try to show that it fails on its own terms as long as you're honest in what you're doing

Mordy, doesn't it depend on whether the ideal is inherent in the original critique or just bolted on?

Why call it "creepy liberalism"? I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

― Neanderthal, Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:11 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Really? I see liberals (you know people who read the Guardian or the NYT) making comments like the ones mentioned in the OP very often, especially the third type. like if you followed the recent discussions around the EDL in the UK you'd see self identified "lefties" (ugh @ that term, but I use it specifically to differentiate from leftists) saying "well yeah the EDL are bigots but hey - free speech" or condemning antifash groups for confronting fascists instead of "engaging in reasoned debate" or some bullshit (also see the Tea Defence League thing or a typical Guardian CiF thread). Usually the people invoking free speech in this context aren't the ones who are affected by the bigotry in question, makes it easy.

how do lefties vs leftists pls

i mean i suppose people on all sides do it, I did when I was 19, but just didn't get why he picked that side in his description

i assume "leftie" = kneejerk football fan leftists and "leftist" = anybody who holds left-leaning political views

lol fuckin splitters

nah cos the former is a subsection of the latter? i mean, i am avowedly a leftist but i try hard not to be a leftie on the whole

but you are v much distancing yrself from them

i don't think it's a "them" so much as an attitude to be deplored, i would argue that you do plenty of sniping at that same kind of attitude on ilx

sorry, i meant to say it's not a group of people, it's a behaviour that any leftist can slip into. i'd argue the same for the right except everybody knows there are no thoughtful, nuanced right wing shitheads

not sure im not just one of em tbrrr

haha xp, xp!

Sorry, meant to write "lefty" in the 1st instance, I suck at spelling/thinking. But wrt to the difference, I think the word "lefty" itself as an infantilised, cutesy form of "leftist" or "left-wing" also reflects the infantilised, shitty politics unconcerned with nuance and removed from actual left-wing thought of the people who self-identify with it.

For context as to where I'm coming from with this criticism, I'm sort of a #combatliberalism type of person.

There's also a sense online that some people who are mainly interested in free speech - may have a reasoned, valuable commitment to it - sometimes 'swoop' into discussions merely to assert that free speech is more important than anything else and then swoop out again.

To me free speech as a concept is basically a legal one. It mainly bears on whether a person can be treated as a criminal for saying something. I am not quite an absolutist on this question, but very close. I would say that the state must have overwhelming interests at stake to justify criminalizing speech. Civil liability is a different question and I'm willing to treat it by looser, but still restrictive, standards.

But just because some kinds of expression ought not be criminalized, it doesn't mean they are socially acceptable in any way. I'm fine and dandy with calling people out for anything they say that's harmful or offensive, even organizing boycotts or protests over offensive speech. It is when the law gets into it that I grow exceedingly cautious.

Add to that that I think a lot of the early promoters of free speech were literally talking about printing presses, pamphlets and public speaking. Now we have the telephone, the television, cinema, the internet, all of which alter communication massively each in their own way and together. Dunno if that should make a difference or be registered by free speech arguments. Maybe, maybe not, but it seems like something that gets missed a lot.

The internet analogizes pretty well to printing presses and publication, with the owner of the server as the publisher. I can upload my posts to ilx or my photos to flickr, just as I can write a letter to the editor and use the newspaper to disseminate my letter, but that use is conditional on the editors of the newspaper wanting to publish it. Similarly, paid space on a server is subject to the conditions of sale, as imposed by the owner and accepted by the buyer, as with ads in a newspaper.

ppl who don't think liberals do this apparently haven't met every white ex-hippy/deadhead/pink floyd megafan boomer dude i've met
this:

There's also a sense online that some people who are mainly interested in free speech - may have a reasoned, valuable commitment to it - sometimes 'swoop' into discussions merely to assert that free speech is more important than anything else and then swoop out again.

they do it, I just didn't originally get why he only zeroed in on liberals.

I once saw a Wikipedia argument on someone's talk page where he had content removed as it was original research (which he didn't deny), and he replied saying that he would file a lawsuit if it wasn't reinstated, as Wikipedia had violated his free speech, and he had won a similar case like this before.

can't find it anymore but wish I could, it was really funny.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116842/trigger-warnings-have-spread-blogs-college-classes-thats-bad

What began as a way of moderating Internet forums for the vulnerable and mentally ill now threatens to define public discussion both online and off. The trigger warning signals not only the growing precautionary approach to words and ideas in the university, but a wider cultural hypersensitivity to harm and a paranoia about giving offense. And yet, for all the debate about the warnings on campuses and on the Internet, few are grappling with the ramifications for society as a whole.

hard not to read this article as a combo WE AINT HURTIN NO ONE CMON and SHUTINS STAY HOME, but the framing does kind of suggest that the spread of trigger warnings mistakenly accepts the liberal scheme for the public management of wrongs/risks: class it as a harm, institute safeguards.

i don't know much about liberal theory. are there recognized classes of things that are proscribed because they might do harm, but it can't be known in advance whether they would in fact do so (thus the logic of a trigger warning, to issue a precaution to permit those who expect harm to exclude themselves)? (if pertaining to speech, would that just traditionally fall under 'decorum' and 'decency'?)

Weird thing to worry about in an age when there are fewer barriers to people viewing all different kinds of content than ever before. Everything is accessible at every moment; things like trigger warnings are just there to help people navigate life without having negative emotional responses forced on them. It has nothing to do with "free speech."

The trigger-warning-requiring "trauma" strikes me as a little bit like the gluten allergy -- a very real but not extremely common phenomenon that gets co-opted by attention seekers.

treezy the reason i put this in this thread (besides tnr lol) is that the framework seems to be the liberal framework, in which speech is traditionally one of the acts least thought to fall within the scope of the harm principle. since the rationale for trigger-warning seems to involve avoiding the inadvertent causing of harms (or maybe that's not the right description, which would matter?), it seems like it's worth asking what a more widespread use of trigger warnings implies about our conceptions/perceptions of ourselves and our speech. say, as harmful to ourselves, beyond our ability to control or to bear it, because of what has been done to us or what has happened to us. and of speech, the words of others, as a danger to our mundane capacity to play a part in the sphere of speech, to relate to others in public.

like, the more is classed under traumas of that sort, the conception becomes an appeal to liberalism's hatred of cruelty, because the triggerable person would be regarded as bearing persistently or permanently tender wounds which any sensitive responsible person would forbear to touch. but i'm not sure a practice of free and open discussion is compatible with that degree of wariness about speech as potentially cruel.

counterpoint

“People brutalise everything. They get up noisily, go about noisily all day, and go to bed noisily. And they constantly talk far too noisily. They are so taken up with themselves that they don’t notice the distress they constantly cause to others, to those who are sick. Everything they do, everything they say causes distress to people like us. And in this way they force anyone who is sick more and more into the background until he’s no longer noticed. And the sick person withdraws into his background. But every life, every existence, belongs to one person and one person only, and no one else has the right to force this life and this existence to one side, to force it out of the way, to force it out of existence. We’ll go by ourselves, as we have the right to do. That’s part of the natural course.”
— Thomas Bernhard — from Concrete

as harmful to ourselves, beyond our ability to control or to bear it,

I may not be following all the parts of your argument, but my response to this bit is, why does it have to be "unbearable" to be unacceptable? Can't people determine for themselves what level of pain or discomfort or aggravation they're prepared to accept at that moment? Trigger warnings are just to let those people know that they may, for their own mental and/or emotional health, want to exercise their right to that limit.

xp I think that last post gets at my point more.

you realize a trigger warning doesn't actually prevent anything from being said.

the more widespread use of trigger warnings implies that more people know what triggers and trigger warnings are and want to create welcoming environments for people who need them. it allows people to mentally prepare themselves if they need to, or bail altogether if they need to. i don't even have 'triggers' and i appreciate them for my own sake. if i were in a hypothetical class right now and i saw a PPT with the header "Trigger Warning: Suicide" i would bail. i'm not sure how any discussion benefits from me freaking out in the middle of a classroom. 15 million american adults share my disorder.

xp

Imo to reject the idea of triggers and trigger warnings as unnecessary or RUN AMOK or w/e is basically to say, "Regardless of who you or I am or what our relationship is, I claim the right to add to your pain today. Fuck you. Deal with it. Not my problem." And then you expect friendship or scholarship or obedience or agreement or anything from that person afterward?

i know it doesn't prevent the things from being said, but it effects a greater regimentation of speech that seems to parallel the contractualization of all human relations under late liberalism, which seems like maybe not the soundest tactic xp

I'm just not seeing a problem with that.

One thing I've noticed is that things on social media become so politically charged that if someone makes a factual correction to someone's righteous rant it is taken as a defense or an apology for nefarious forces.

I have fairly bad OCD. Because of the nature of online discourse now, that OCD has manifested itself in being unable to write any opening message without pre-addressing the vicious objections i think may come in response. Everything is 5 paragraphs lol

You're not the only person I know who suffers from this (and I really do think of it as suffering). I am "fortunate" (in the sense of "suited to online discourse") in that I'm somewhat sociopathic — I'll tell you exactly what I think, because who gives a fuck what you think? If you disagree with me, I might fight you about it, but more likely I'll just ignore you. (I don't killfile anybody because I'm low-tech and lazy, but there are multiple ILXors I don't respond to anymore, because there's no exchange to be had.)

That said, I find your posts in particular not just welcome but consistently interesting.

Neando, I have found that opting out of online discourse entirely, outside of this place and a few no drama discords, has made me a happier person.

Of course walking away isn't a societal solution - the problems you describe will continue - and perhaps on some level it's a cop out but fuck it, on a level of individual mental health it's the way to go. And just anecdotally I see a lot of ppl my age do the same.

It has also helped me to realise that deeds (as in mutual aid, volunteering, etc. not trying revolutionary chic here) matter so much more than whatever words I might summon to try to convince anyone of anything (double that if we're talking online).

<3 Neando

Yeah Daniel I'm seeing more and more walking away is important.

I'd managed to significantly reduce my screen time outside here and it was great.

But I got sucked back in hardcore!

Thanks all

I think there are actually quite a lot of canon takes here. I mean, this entire board is firmly far left as far as I can fathom. And my deepest convictions are all far left as well but I have a number of loosely-held feelings and suppositions that I would never in a million years share here unless I was itching to get shouted down and accused of perpetrating grievous injury.

is your opinion about Bad Bunny?

Social media & the internet have really changed people’s instincts imo … imo as a 50+ year old. It’s weird thinking about 90s internet message boards vs what exists now. …the other day I worried that someone in a Signal group might misinterpret an emoji … and today I explained the Zizians to my 80 year old mother. … I said at one point in my explanation, “when you were 20, people had to run away to join Maoist communes, now they can join them from home!”

I really like Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist. Seeing him in decline and then dying onscreen is extremely sad, but the whole thing's fascinating IMO. I couldn't get it out of my head that he did all this stuff to cope with having cystic fibrosis, but as things got bad he just couldn't do it anymore, and at the end was completely stunned by the realization that he was really about to die.

I've seen the documentary that Kate is being careful not to name, but don't remember it very well, so I think I'm going to rewatch it at some point.

I have fairly bad OCD. Because of the nature of online discourse now, that OCD has manifested itself in being unable to write any opening message without pre-addressing the vicious objections i think may come in response. Everything is 5 paragraphs lol

I get this, and I don't think there's a right answer is such but I think you have to look at it like if you get what you consider to the a vicious or vitriolic response to something you just have to let it slide. There could be all kinds of reasons for the response that most likely aren't even anything to do with you (even something as innocuous as toothache). But on the other hand a strong response isn't necessarily a vicious response though can be perceived as such, and arguing can be productive!

And my deepest convictions are all far left as well but I have a number of loosely-held feelings and suppositions that I would never in a million years share here unless I was itching to get shouted down and accused of perpetrating grievous injury.

Coming back to this, the thing is, I want more disagreement. Disagreement is one of the things I use the internet for. I'm thinking of buying a particular thing, or using a particular tool. Am I making a mistake? Maybe. Whose opinions do I actually value at this moment? People who have negative things to say about it, and people who have positive things to say about alternative choices

But we often ended up with an environment full of people who either a) backslap and cosign for the wonderful choice we've made and just say the same thing we just did, b) call us a bellend and full of shit for the choice, or c) don't say their actual opinion because they think we might call them a bellend and full of shit for saying it

I mean pushback is a good thing. I don't mind that. I was a privileged, sheltered kid coming out of high school with naive beliefs and most of my leftward drift came from people challenging me my first few years in college.

But it did require incredible patience on their side.

As a non North American it looks to me like (a) the polarisation of online interaction has been deliberately engineered by social media platforms to drive engagement (duh) and (b) as a society, folks (particularly those of left leaning views) are under unbelievable stress at the moment and this is unlikely to foster broadminded consideration of differing views.

(also duh)

also marginalised people beyond the left have come to recognise certain kinds of "just innocently asking questions" or "you must debate me rationally and calmly even when i question your entire identity" discourse for what it is and recognise that some of the foundational myths of liberal thought are, at bottom, ideological weapons - pretty much the premise this thread was started on! in those circumstances then ignoring or vociferously challenging micro-aggressions, conscious or not, is an entirely understandable thing to do. imo one of the things that keeps the best online communities valuable is when they don't allow themselves to be overwhelmed by Debate Me bros.

obv there is a lot of nuance and other interactions to consider in terms of how people within a community support each other, but this sign has to be tapped on every few weeks apparently

I get this, and I don't think there's a right answer is such but I think you have to look at it like if you get what you consider to the a vicious or vitriolic response to something you just have to let it slide. There could be all kinds of reasons for the response that most likely aren't even anything to do with you (even something as innocuous as toothache). But on the other hand a strong response isn't necessarily a vicious response though can be perceived as such, and arguing can be productive!

So on one level this is good advice, but on another it is severely underestimating the emotional charge of these situations: the poster's irrational anger rubbing up against the reader's irrational fears and anxieties. In such a situation rational arguments are basically besides the point, you can tell yourself about the other person's toothache a million times and it won't change anything. So I say again: extricating yourself from situations that cause this is also an option! It doesn't mean you are "giving up" or failing to fulfill your role as a citizen in the Modern Acropolis.

The internet is particularly likely to lead to such emotionally charged situations as well, due to structural factors - not even talking about all the sinister shit social media throws at us, but more basic points like...if you're arguing with a friend irl their tone and smile will communicate much more than a :) online, their replies to you will be immediate (as opposed to posting something online and then having the opportunity to have a dozen angry discussions about it in your head before anyone's even replied), outside of DMs online is "public" so you are debating with and to an audience, etc.

I agree with the above entirely, especially opting out

What I really meant was in the case of if or where barbs have already arrived, not a suggestion to go wading in and accept the barbs that may come from it.

But reading my post back, your interpretation of it is entirely valid. I could have re-read that 10 times and not seen your interpretation, but reading it back now, that interpretation is really quite obvious

We opt out of things all the time, even for just no particular reason. And we should. But I felt in the original posts there was a subtext of wanting to say something but feeling uncomfortable about it, which suggests not necessarily wanting to opt out. Or feeling conflicted about it, at least

Scold culture really took off during the pandemic and now what I see in these spaces are people who are hesitant to express any view until a respected 'authority' comfirms the proper take everyone should adopt.

Some of it is no doubt due to pandemic, but I also think its politics taking an increasingly bad turn for everybody in the last ten years. Not even personally but seeing atrocities in Gaza from afar, which means trying to reason this out in public - which in one sense is real time political education for all and a net positive in the long run - but it also means the process is fraught, messy and will leave people with scars.

We opt out of things all the time, even for just no particular reason. And we should. But I felt in the original posts there was a subtext of wanting to say something but feeling uncomfortable about it, which suggests not necessarily wanting to opt out. Or feeling conflicted about it, at least

Yeah I get that, posted mostly because I myself didn't want to opt out for the longest time, held unrealistic beliefs about the power of debate, etc. I'm being vocal about it because I feel like many might be in the situation I was in.

I go back and forth on this, because I find a lot of value in disagreement, at least in theory. Especially when I'm not settled on something myself. Lots of times things aren't actually all that clear, but the (growing?) absolutism of things isn't a good test of anything at all

As I said, I have come to the conclusion that I learn more from deeds - which also includes disagreements! - than I do from debate. Debate's mostly just a fun passtime at this point in my life - I learn much more from confronting my beliefs with the reality on the ground. But I'm not claiming that is universal.

assert (matttkkkk) at 9:37 5 Feb 26

As a non North American it looks to me like (a) the polarisation of online interaction has been deliberately engineered by social media platforms to drive engagement (duh) and (b) as a society, folks (particularly those of left leaning views) are under unbelievable stress at the moment and this is unlikely to foster broadminded consideration of differing views

4 am thoughts

Coming back to this, the thing is, I want more disagreement. Disagreement is one of the things I use the internet for. I'm thinking of buying a particular thing, or using a particular tool. Am I making a mistake? Maybe. Whose opinions do I actually value at this moment? People who have negative things to say about it, and people who have positive things to say about alternative choices

But we often ended up with an environment full of people who either a) backslap and cosign for the wonderful choice we've made and just say the same thing we just did, b) call us a bellend and full of shit for the choice, or c) don't say their actual opinion because they think we might call them a bellend and full of shit for saying it

― anvil, Wednesday, February 4, 2026 11:47 PM (yesterday)

i think disagreement is valuable under a lot of circumstances, and those aren't the circumstances i personally am under... what i want most is validation, emotional validation, other human beings confirming that the things i believe aren't crazy or stupid. because the systems of power in america and on the internet are extremely invalidating. it is weird because i do think the internet, which i believed so strongly in the potential of when i was younger, is now the absolute center of power of the forces of oppression. it's been "nerfed" by corporate fascist oligarchs so heavily that i find it all but useless in this day and age, and my frustration is mostly that i'm functionally forced to use it at all.

it's not that i don't have confidence in myself, mind you. one of the things that drives me away from the internet is that i am increasingly confident in myself. when i talk, i give speeches, i talk in ways that don't necessarily open the door to discussion. partly this is hypervigilance, but mostly it's that, well...

i've changed in the past 10 years, i'd like to think for the better. when i was younger, i believed strongly in "discourse", by which i meant abuse. i was genuinely well-intentioned, i think, if ignorant... the internet was a natural fit for me because i'd grown up being emotionally abused by an incredibly brilliant person. it was a great opportunity for me to interact with people in the ways i'd thought of as "normal". i had principles, and they were good ones... it wasn't about _what_ i said, but _how_ i said it, falling into "flamer" internet culture. undifferentiated "extreme" culture, part of which was people saying shitty awful bigoted things, and part of which was just genuinely weird stuff outside the realm of what i'd been taught was "normal". in the past 15 or so years, those two impulses have grown increasingly categorically distinct, and, well, people saying shitty awful bigoted things is apparently more profitable for giant corporations, as well as, this interests me, easier to manipulate and control.

i remember in the first half of the 2010s the outrage when facebook was doing research into how they could use their platform for emotional manipulation. well i can only conclude that their research yielded useful results, because corporate social media is absolutely built on social manipulation. and at first i was just mad at facebook, but more recently i've come to understand that they're simply amplifying a quality that was always present on the internet. and that quality is taking highly activated emotional language and framing it as "logic". honestly, this is a quality that has a long, _long_ tradition in Western (white) culture... I look at the Roman orators the founders of America esteemed so highly, at the legal tradition that was the basis of the values my family taught me, and I find that much of it is about emotionally manipulating people while making it look like what one is saying about "facts" and "evidence". i grew up revering movies like "12 angry men", and, well... at the same time, my grandfather, the lawyer patriarch of our extended family, his favorite film was _a man for all seasons_, this fascinating intersection of Brechtian rhetoric and humanist Catholic stubbornness. my grandfather saw it as a role model for how to perform non-compliance. i don't agree with _a man for all seasons_ in a lot of ways, but it's definitely informed how i interact and talk with other people, how i exhibit my principles. and a lot of what sir thomas more does is... there are things he believes that he chooses to remain silent on. everybody knows what he believes. they're really fucking mad that he won't come out and say it. and i think the thing that impresses me is that he _shows_ instead of _telling_, that thing i was always told about fiction.

i try to show more and tell less. and i try to show empathy, compassion, kindness... to other people but first and foremost to myself. it's who i am, and at the same time, "who i am" means that i change my beliefs based on _evidence_. 30 years ago the research wasn't out there. now it is. now the research that exists suggests that arguing with people doesn't change people's minds, but causes us to harden our hearts against the people who are trying to persuade us, _particularly_ when the other people are _factually correct_. we have this whole system that's based on logic and reason, facts good, feelings bad, and i don't think feelings _can_ be good or bad, right or wrong. they're just not facts. and the research, again, suggests, that while we are very capable of reason a lot of the time, when we're highly emotionally activated, well, we're not. when i'm upset i don't think logically. i'm very good at rhetoric so i can come up with all kinds of arguments to make my emotions _seem_ factual in nature, but it doesn't actually change the facts.

so i talk in these long, long chunks of text, and, well, part of it is that i'm older, i'm slower... when someone says something interesting, i take it in, i listen, and then i take the time to sort through my _feelings_ about what they're saying. cuz that does take time, it doesn't fit in well with the "microblogging" thing where everybody needs to respond instantaneously. and i guess writing how i sort of put my feelings into words. yeah, most posts i make here are essentially "first drafts", in that i write without worrying about how to most succinctly and efficiently communicate what i'm saying to an audience. if there's anything i don't believe in, it's not myself, it's, well, the internet, and as much as i love this site, as much as this place is categorically better than corporate social media, it is technically a public internet site. :)

well, this is kind of the only place i have the opportunity to _think_ in terms of the written word, to work through my thoughts around people who can... people are willing to disagree, when they're not cowed into silence by my prolixity, but even if people aren't "engaging" directly with my posts, the reason i post here is because people here give me things to _think_ about, to consider. and that's not a model that's conducive to monetization. at least not the form of monetization the corporate internet has adopted wholesale!

---

i feel like much, if not all, of the above is me rehashing your second paragraph in longer terms... idk, it's how i internalize stuff. writing is hard for me lately. i'm very skeptical of what i've come to call the "idolatry of the word". because the thing is... i think a lot about language. george carlin, george orwell, they've shaped my thoughts a lot, for better and for worse. i think of myself as being, in many ways, a narratively constructed person - or at least someone who's shaped strongly by the stories i tell about myself. the corporate internet is very much, i think, an example of "strong sapir-whorf" thinking, the belief that it _is_ possible to control people's thoughts by regulating the language that we use. and i do think the sapir-whorf theory applies to a great extent, i think carlin is a fantastic observer of how language is perverted for ideological purposes.

at the same time... i didn't really understand _the book of the new sun_, but one section i do recall well is a section towards the end which describes a society whose speech is controlled by their rulers so that they can only utter certain stock phrases in praise of those rulers. and what wolfe does, as i recall, is demonstrate the emergent qualities of language, the way we ourselves "pervert" any language we're given to express the things that we need to express. i absolutely find this to be true in practice. i watched, a year or so ago, this very interesting video by contrapoints which was, in theory, about the _twilight_ books. well, i think this was in part because it was acceptable on youtube to discuss _twilight_, and not acceptable to discuss kink. and of course there is precedent for this in _50 shades of grey_, which is, i'm reliably informed, a fucking horrible book, and which, at the same time... i feel like it did open the door for people to talk about kink in ways that _aren't_ stupid. when i was younger, there was a series of books called the _gor_ novels, which were widely derided, but people looked at that and, well, made lemonade out of lemons. err, i'm not talking about piss play or anything. i do try to watch out for the subtext, goreans, when i was younger, were more protocol-based than anything.

i don't think it's inherently a good thing, this way of using language, but i do think it's interesting, and i do think it's an inherent challenge to the ultra-prescriptivists, who have set up, in the internet, this narrative which is... increasingly in conflict with reality. i see a lot of people looking at this world and concluding that if you lie enough, you can do anything. i think "if you lie enough, you can do anything" is kind of a central component of The Lie. when i told my youngest sibling, who is very involved in recovery groups, that i hadn't found "fake it till you make it" to be true in practice, they said that a better way of putting it is "you can't think your way into a new way of acting, but you can act your way into a new way of thinking".

i can ta-ta-ta-ta-talk myself to death, or nearly to death i guess, but ultimately i get so desperate and frustrated that i can't help but fucking _do_ things. and mostly those things are good, i've found, better than wasting my breath. it's not that there's no point in talking, but it has a time and a place. the internet has always failed as a replacement for the corporeal. in the 90s, i didn't use the internet like that... i used the internet as a way to bridge the weird shit in my head with corporeal interactions with other people. it's a real struggle to do, because we're all really fucked up and traumatized and the things the internet tries to push us to believe are increasingly at odds with empirical reality. i keep doing it, though, as best i can, because it's what keeps me alive. that's something else i've learned. when shit gets tough, what keeps people alive isn't just about guns or food or whatever. it's about community. isolation kills. which sucks pretty badly for people who are physically isolated, like my friends in alaska, in the yukon. as a weird kid growing up in republican suburban new jersey, the internet showed me that there were people who were weird like me in the world. it's still true, but for us who belong to what was at one time termed the "long tail"... the internet has cut off its long tail, and while i think there can be times when it's... valuable... for someone to do something like that, the internet being what it is... the only thing that's ever been of value in it, i believe, is that long tail.

so increasingly, i interpret the internet as damage and try to route around it. i think you can see this... things become smaller, more local, in times like these, and i think there is value to that. the internet has always struggled with a sense of _scale_. there is no universal community, really. in some ways i do almost think of the internet as the actualization of the old myth of the tower of babel. there's this attempt to bring all of humanity together, united in one purpose, and what we find is that we're divided by a common language. i don't think there's any greater moral purpose to it, i think that's just how language _works_, how human communication _works_. it does, though, seem like someone or something has confused the language of the whole world, and as a result we are scattered into smaller groups.

---

which brings me to the question of, you know, it used to be called "cancel culture", groupthink, people shouting each other down, whatever. and i think this is... the thing i say increasingly, when it comes to why i hate cops, is that the thing i hate most about cops is that it puts me in a position where i feel like i have to _be_ a cop. that's what happens when the law binds, but does not protect you. we all have no resources, no authority. we're all on the outside, and the people on the inside are... well, i mean, they're fucking systemic perpetrators of CSA, aren't they? like, literally? and, i mean, how do you live in community when these people are the LEADERS, these people are the ones setting the rules? you have people out there basically openly advocating for sexual assault and, like... i mean, like i said above, i got _feelings_, i got _so many feelings_, anger, grief, fear, and, increasingly, disgust. that's an interesting one. and the people in power, they're not listening. i can't shout down the israeli government, but i can send an email to a local theater who gets funding from an organization that has some sort of ties to an organization that has ties to the israeli military... i think? "in war, truth is the first casualty", i think someone said. our language is confounded. i don't follow the official sources. what i know comes from the rumor mill. and it's very easy for that to turn into a moral panic. maybe the information i have about this theater is wrong. i try to do due diligence, but i'm also, uh, well, i don't trust most of the "official" sources, and the people who do have some idea of the truth are constrained very much by the internet. we gotta keep ourselves alive by talking with idioms.

as much as we're all trying to do the right thing, we all gotta get paid, right? we all gotta make compromises, we all gotta make hard decisions. and i'm not gonna blame anyone for their decisions, but if someone decides to, say, make common causes with transphobes, that means i can't have common cause with them. so yeah. that's always been the way of it, with the left, and they call it "the left eating itself" but it's not, really. it's establishing a common framework of values. there absolutely is an orthodoxy here, and, i mean, everyone on the internet is wearing a uniform, right? supporting trans rights _isn't_ an unquestionable norm on most of the internet, and it very much is here, and that's a large part of the reason i'm here and i'm not on corporate social media. because i do believe in norms. i think it's important that people have common norms and reinforce them. i'm not... i'm not outraged at the people in power for doing the same thing. it just means that we're enemies, that we _can't_ sit down at the table and find a common good. they're not changing their values, and i'm not changing mine. that doesn't mean that we need to settle our differences through clausewitzian diplomacy by any means. they have a decided diplomatic advantage there. for me, all it means is that i have my values and i try to live them as best i can, and i guess they do the same. they live their values on the internet, where they can say whatever the fuck they want and not be bothered about whether material reality backs it up, and i live mine, well, wherever i can. on the internet no more than i have to. :)

Coming back to this, the thing is, I want more disagreement.

I want more disagreement and to have a variety of thoughts but honestly at this point I'm only interested in being challenged in my growth in the direction that I want to be growing in. There are enough spheres of life where more conservative/regressive opinions are available and people voice them very comfortably. That's not where my learning edge is and it's not interesting me to try to deprogram someone from their "we shouldn't tax rich people because they earned their billions fair and square" indoctrination.

totally agreed io. and i guess this is one of the things that, as much as i love ILX... i know y'all, and i think y'all are pretty much great (specifically calling out you, io, as well as neando, map, anvil, sarahell, sleeve, the rest of y'all on this thread as well but i did wanna name y'all specifically :) )... and at the same time, out of everybody name here i've only met sleeve, and it does limit how much i can know someone if we can't hang out. my last ex-girlfriend broke up with me because, well, we never got to see each other... she only lives two hours away, but keeping up a relationship with someone i didn't ever get to see, i couldn't really do that well.

i also, whenever i take the "big 5" test (the one personality test with some evidence of clinical significance), one of the things i rank highest on is "openness to experience". i crave new experience. i hunger and thirst for new experience. am i a lot older? sure. am i depressed and also deeply afraid of doing new things? well, yeah. do i genuinely love life, love the world, love all the amazing people in it? absolutely. i'm just bowled over, on a regular basis, by the wild, amazing, wonderful things this world has to offer, endlessly, ceaselessly. this place is chock full of creative, idiosyncratic, passionate people.

and we're not getting any younger, you know? yeah, most of the people i know these days are younger than me. there's this kind of disconnect, with y'all i can talk about the things we've went through, generationally, not as "nostalgia", as _lived experience_. and i guess it's not new, the "generation gap". the internet can be a very lonely place, can't it? a lot of us are very lonely people. being around other people means being there for each other's grief and pain, and finding ways to express our own grief and pain that don't overwhelm other people.

it's not a matter of "why can't people stop being assholes on the internet". i've said before that if the internet were a physical place, it would probably be someplace like pdx, and these conflicts, the "discourse", the things that get argued about are often stupid and the emotions are real. there are places where i'm not welcome because of my past behavior, and i've had to learn that it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just that... the term i use is "highly sensitive person". there was, of course, discourse about it. it's pretty similar to what some people used to call "empaths", and of course those people then got made fun of by other people. nobody was _wrong_ exactly. it's just not a matter of morality for me, of good or bad.

i have Big Feels. i have them easier and they hit harder, last longer, affect me more. there are good things about that and bad things about it. it's painful, a lot of the time, because caring hurts. and, well, i'd rather care than _not_ care, cuz i see what happens to people who don't care. and i used to... a lot of gen x was this posture of apathy, "so fucking what", etc. and i guess some people, some of us actually didn't care, maybe a lot of us honestly. for me, i sought out extreme stuff, "edgelord" stuff, to kind of try to numb my emotions, to inure myself. i can't imagine really what bob flanagan must have been through, but i know what it's like to seek out extreme pain to try and inure myself from the pain i'm experiencing, pain that is, in a lot of ways, beyond my control. i used to bury my feelings, to have lots of thoughts, and god, i was miserable, miserable the way a lot of these internet edgelords are now. these days, i tend to bury my thoughts more. there's a lot i want to say and i mostly don't get to say it in paragraphs, as opposed to dribs and drabs on private discord servers. writing helps me make sense ok my feelings, always has. i wish there was a better place for me to write like this on the internet! there really isn't, though. not right now. i'm not starving for _content_, i'm starving for _knowledge_. people tell me i'm "wise", but it's kinda hard to be wise when i don't really _know_ what's going on right now.

i look at youtube - private window, as always - and the sidebar has some video from five hours ago with 1.5 million views that says "WATCH TRUMP SPIRAL ON LIVE TV", and the thumbnail says "ONE SICK F***", because, again, we've reached the point where you can't actually say "fuck" on the internet. and me, i just think about gil scott-heron. and i'm not even going to put words on what's happening now. "words are dead", i sometimes say, taking something billy name said out of context. words aren't dead, though. it's just that the thing that gil scott-heron said wouldn't be televised, that's not what's happening. the word wouldn't be the right word even if i _could_ say it without it being interpreted as sedition. i'm not interested in sedition. i'm also not interested in copping out on skag or q-anon or most of the shit we do to avoid the world outside. i don't judge anybody for doing it, but the shit they say on the internet just bears so little resemblance to reality.. i often say that i can't suspend my disbelief in reality, but it's not "reality" itself that i object to. it's this hyperreal, hypernormalized corporate hellscape that.. i accept it, but i don't understand why people would do or say the things that they do and say. i guess this circus, the american metaphysical circus, is my circus, but i don't know what the hell i'm supposed to _do_ with it. they want me to watch and talk and watch and talk and i do have feelings, but they don't _deserve_ those feelings, for the most part. except for the disgust. and what do i do when i'm disgusted? i turn off the television.

i know that's another long ramble. like i said, i don't write much, anymore. even if i don't make a whole lot of sense, i feel like i'd make less sense if i didn't write at all. it's not good for me to bury all this stuff, i know.