While it is tempting to brush off the more ridiculous manifestations of postmodern thought by mocking their unintentional hilarity, occasionally a more serious takedown of the ideas is warranted. In my last article I mocked the idea of so-called Feminist Programming Languages by pointing out how stupid and unworkable it is to try to create a supposedly “new” kind of programming language out of a hodgepodge of abstract nonsense, deliberate contradictions and politically correct bullshit. I offered my opinion that Arielle Schlesinger, the woman behind the project, is nothing but a hack that knows how to repeat technical sounding jargon, but has no actual understanding of computers.
You’re kinda cute when you’re exploring feminist critiques of logic.
That was all well and good, but I failed to address the more fundamental point that Feminist Programming is not supposed to work in the first place. There is no point to actually trying to make it work. The whole thing is a huge lie and a massive boondoggle.
Today’s installment comes to from the “Yes, they are actually serious” department of HASTAC, a group that describes themselves as “an alliance of more than 11,500 humanists, artists, social scientists, scientists and technologists working together to transform the future of learning for the 21st century.” Feminist scholar Arielle Schlesinger has embarked on a radical new project to transform the world of computing by doing research into the creation of a feminist programming language that will be freed from the constraints of oppressive man-logic and other patriarchal modes of thinking.
One of the more obnoxious and tiresome aspects of white liberal cultural degeneration in the postmodern era is the tendency to assign moral superiority and progress to things that are ostensibly “black” and moral inferiority and backwardness to things that are “white.” I’m sure we’re all familiar with the phenomenon of a group of liberal whites sitting around engaging in a rhetorical contest with each other over who “understands” black people more, who is more in touch with the black community, who has more black friends, who listens to the blackest music etc.
Usually the winner is able to expose the other whites as being into things that are faux-black but marketed to whites, while he is into the “real” black. So the blackest, and therefore the most moral, white in this scenario is the one that doesn’t listen to “mainstream” hip-hop, but instead is into the more gritty “underground” style that is supposedly more authentically black.
(Protip: It’s not. So-called “underground” hip-hop is pretty much exclusively marketed to white teens, while black radio stations that black people listen to play the mainstream stuff. Merchant is crafty and understands how to get liberal whites to open their wallets.)
Bravery level: So
If you have been on social media in the past 24 hours no doubt you have seen at least one meme posted conflating Nelson Mandela and Morgan Freeman. These images are hilarious because they are such an effective troll of exactly the kind of empty, self-righteous, white liberal do-gooder that publicly praises the “courage” and “strength” of Mandela without actually knowing the first thing about the man or the history surrounding the fall of the White South African State. They call attention to the fact that for the average Western white liberal, Mandela is nothing more than an empty vessel for them to project their political and social fantasies onto. Most liberal whites probably have more of an emotional connection to the charismatic and grandfatherly figure of Freeman than they ever could to Mandela, which is what makes him so perfect for these images.
This wonderful post is brought to you by Being Liberal and Americans Against the Republican Party. (TFW these are real groups with hundreds of thosands of fans.)
It’s almost poetic, the irony that surfaces when leftist narratives collide. Take race out the picture and suddenly the liberal feels free to criticize the welfare recipient as harshly and virulently as he/she/xi can, with impunity. Take race out of the equation, and suddenly the Southern states aren’t just poor, they’re lazy. They aren’t just a burden, they’re parasitic. The dirty South becomes a diseased limb of the nation that needs to be amputated. When race is taken out of the picture, suddenly welfare states are the tapeworms of the country, sucking the life out of the prim and proper (and mostly white) tax-paying “blue states” of America.
“Often in my lectures when I use the phrase ‘imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy’ to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny. The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism. It functions as a disclaimer, discounting the significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience’s way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves with an antipatriarchal disobedient critique. This laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not being taken seriously.” — bell hooks, Understanding Patriarchy
No one has ever explained why if this system is so oppressive it is so easy for people like bell hooks to say things like this without suffering any negative consequences. Not only is it easy, but she is rewarded for it with prestige, influence and power, and she is not the only one.
Introducing The TRS Lexicon
TRS is a blog that attracts a plethora of cultures, experiences, and philosophies. Over time, this has come to impact the blog’s dialogue and vocabulary.
As such, we feel it appropriate to begin collecting aphorisms, colloquialisms, neologisms, and portmanteaus on this page for the ease of new and returning visitors.
Like the founding fathers intended for the United States Constitution, we intend this to be a living document. We will be continuously updating and adding entries. Suggestions for additions or changes are welcome in the comments.
Go there now.
It seems that the most fashionable position one can take on the issue of race today is an outright denial of the entire concept. This talking point is currently all the rage with people that like to think of themselves as intellectual and politically savvy. It is particularly popular among liberal, college-educated, bourgeois whites. Forever seeking to one-up other whites on the political correctness scale, these run-of-the-mill edgytarians eagerly grab hold of the line that “race does not exist” and vainly attempt to validate themselves by regurgitating it ad nauseam whenever the topic of race is discussed.
Racism, as we all know, is a deadly sin against the Science God, but race denialism takes the postmodern religion of scientism one step further. The assumption is that the practice of categorizing humans by race is not only immoral, but that it necessarily leads to wrong or misleading conclusions in real life. In addition to the point that it is objectively false and scientifically invalid (therefore sinful) to make value judgments based on race, the race-deniers claim that all observations and statistical correlations based on race necessarily have zero utility. Some will argue that that there is no way even a flawed or imperfect generalization of race can provide value as a heuristic for navigating everyday life. All concepts of race must be discarded in the name of sacred science and equality.
After much thought and emotional hand-wringing the editorial staff has decided to mothball “The Fash Forum” section of the site. Sorry, but there was just not enough interest or activity. We only got about 50 posts in 6 months. So it wasn’t a good use of time of resources to maintain it.
We have also replaced the native WordPress commenting system on the site with Disqus comments, which is a better system that should make it easier to comment and has better features. Regular commenters will notice the difference. Don’t freak out, all old comments have been imported into the new system.
It is a good idea when analyzing any social phenomenon or institution to look at how it is viewed in the present context by various groups in society and ask why they hold the view that they do. This can be a revealing exercise. If we know about the ideology of a certain group, and we know their general opinion of a certain institution, we can put them together and perhaps see something in that institution that we may have missed if we were to rely entirely on our own reactions, perspectives and prejudices. (MFW Standpoint theory.)
When it comes to capitalism today in the West, we can safely say that it is viewed in a poor light by the liberal intellectual establishment, commonly referred to as the Brahmins. If you are a former libertarian turned reactionary, I urge you to put aside whatever perspective bias you may be suffering from after years of imbibing Rothbard and living inside the libertarian echo-chamber. Pick up the NY Times and see what people with actual power in society today think of capitalism. It’s an interesting contrast from the endless praise and even outright worship it gets from the bow-tie/fedora sect.