Rape, SJW, and virtue signaling

Rape, SJW, and virtue signaling


Facebook Heroism And The Decline Of Masculinity --Warden
One of my main problems with social media is that it tends to make me like people far less than if had I only interacted with them in meatspace. And this is because people tend to be less free with their big, dumb, annoying political opinions when they’re face to face with their audience, freeing me to pretend that most people don’t have big, dumb, annoying political opinions lurking behind their otherwise pleasant and reasonable public demeanor.

Last week was a case in point. A twenty-something adult male from my church posted an instructional video that purported to teach women how to protect themselves from rape with the following (paraphrased) commentary:

This rape prevention video is 6 minutes long. I have a better idea. Why don’t we instead simply spend 3 seconds on a video that tells men not to rape? God didn’t need long instructional videos for the 10 Commandments. "Thou shall not" is pretty direct.

Six women had "liked" this post by the time it came across my feed.

I stared at that bit of knee-jerk progressive virtue signaling foolishness for a good minute or more before breaking a personal social media rule and writing what I hoped was a polite correction.

But I couldn’t get that post out of my head because the more I thought about it, the more I realized how much there was to unpack. Just who are these men out there don’t understand that rape is wrong? Other than African and Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants, I can’t think of any.

Of course rapists know that rape isn’t okay, just as thieves know that stealing isn’t okay, just as murderers know that murder isn't okay. There is literally no other serious crime in America where we take the position that the criminals just need to be “taught” that their misdeeds are wrong.

And in no other case would a progressive be outraged at an instructional video that teaches people how to avoid victimization. No one angrily asserts that, instead of telling people to lock their car doors at the mall, we just need to teach people to not steal Christmas presents from other shoppers. This would be an insane position to take and everybody knows it.

So, what exactly is going on here? Well, the obvious difference between rape and almost every other crime is that it’s one where men are almost always the offenders and women the victim. This distinction provides a convenient cudgel for Cultural Marxists to shame and smear men generally as violent and beastly. (By way of evidence, you will notice that the very similar crime of child rape is handled completely differently because it is often a male on male crime, which invokes homosexuality, a protected and privileged class among progressives.)

But that’s not what this young fella was thinking when he made the post--that’s the evil, insidious nature of Cultural Marxism--he was not, in fact, thinking at all. Rather, he was subconsciously angling for approval by obliquely smearing other men. The implicit message of that post was, “I am against rape,” but the subtext was, “Other men are NOT against rape and I should be praised for this because I am uniquely opposed to rape in ways that other men are not.”

Remember, the message was, "Teach MEN not to rape." Not some men. Not rapists... MEN.

Teach men not to rape.

This is a social media trend that I’ve noticed among progressives. They position themselves as fighters against injustice, but only take public stands against things that earn them approval and praise. One way to really amp up your cred is to call out the group to which you belong, thereby absolving yourself of the your group's collective sin in doing so. It’s a particularly dishonest, cowardly and backstabby way to operate.

Note, too, that helping women protect themselves from rape is not even a secondary concern. Rather, the very idea of it is a source of anger. Pragmatic, real-world solutions are replaced with the strange and childish fantasy that less enlightened men just need a good scolding about all their rapeyness and all will be well.

Do progressives even believe this? Again, I don't think they've even considered it long enough to believe or not believe. At this point, they're just reacting to stimuli like a single cell organism reacting to a low voltage electrical shock. They've been swimming in Cultural Marxism for so long that they've lost their ability to think.

The most appalling part of his post wasn’t that it was so devoid of logic and common sense; it was that a grown man sought and received praise for the almost universally agreed upon position of-- being against rape.

Bold stance, bro. And truly outside the box. You've got us all thinking about stuff in, like, a whole new way.

This is where we are. Seeking and receiving praise for "taking a stand" against what is a universally despised crime.

What does that say about our standards?

I have a theory on this that as we become softer, weaker and more technologically dependent, men--who are genetically hardwired to hunters, risk takers, and physical protectors--will increasingly rely upon this kind of limp-wristed virtue signaling in absence of any sort of real masculine achievement.

Heroism used to be defined by deeds. Today it is defined by words--ones everybody in your tribe agrees with, and directed at phantom menaces who cannot do you actual harm.

It's safe. It's easy. And it's fake, just like everything else about the progressive left.

I find it to be incredibly sad, this state we're in. And deep down, I think that progressives also know how shallow and full of bullshit they are.

Ace recently had a post about the NFL that caused a bit of ruckus in the comment section. And while I loosely agree with him that watching a bunch of grown men compete from the comfort of your couch is not a truly masculine endeavor, I do think that football is an important aspect of our rapidly diminishing warrior culture and to see it violated and diminished by a bunch of bed-wetting SJWs is a net loss to the masculine spirit.

Football is a fantastic game for teaching boys toughness, teamwork and discipline. The fact that it is in decline while less violent sports like soccer ascend in America is no accident.

I started my 10 year old in tackle football this fall, not in spite of the football’s propensity to bang kids up, but partially because of it. And each time my wife freaks out from the stands because her boy is limping off the field, I nod my head and think, “Good.” I do not think this because I’m a sadist, but because I think that boys who learn to play through pain, to meet difficult challenges, and to get up after being knocked on their asses over and over again are more apt to become men who display genuine bravery and heroism rather than the phony take-a-stand-that-everyone-already-agrees-with Facebook kind.

And God knows we need more of that.

The awful rise of 'virtue signalling'

The awful rise of 'virtue signalling'

Go to a branch of Whole Foods, the American-owned grocery shop, and you will see huge posters advertising Whole Foods, of course, but — more precisely — advertising how virtuous Whole Foods is. A big sign in the window shows a mother with a little child on her shoulders (aaaah!) and declares: ‘values matter.’

The poster goes on to assert: ‘We are part of a growing consciousness that is bigger than food — one that champions what’s good.’ This a particularly blatant example of the increasingly common phenomenon of what might be called ‘virtue signalling’ — indicating that you are kind, decent and virtuous.

We British do it, too. But we are more sophisticated, or underhand. Mishal Husain was particularly aggressive to Nigel Farage on the Today programme recently, interrupting him mid-sentence, insinuating that he is racist or that, even if he isn’t, his membership is. She would doubtless like to believe that she was being tough but fair. But another force within her was stronger. Mishal was ‘virtue signalling’ indirectly — indicating that she has the right, approved, liberal media-elite opinions, one of which is despising Ukip and thus, most importantly, advertising that she is not racist. When she later goes to a dinner party attended by other members of the media elite, she will be welcomed and approved for having displayed the approved, virtuous views.

There are many ways to advertise your virtue. You can say ‘I hate the Daily Mail!’ to suggest that you care about people who are poor and on welfare benefits. You are saying that you respect them, care about them and do them the honour of believing the vast majority to be honest and in need.

You can declare ‘Page 3 of the Sun was degrading and embarrassing’ if you are a man: this indicates your great respect for women. If, on the other hand, you are a woman, you can say ‘Isn’t Mary Beard marvellous!’ to show that you are way above the shallowness of mere physical appearance.

Virtue signalling crosses the political divide. When David Cameron defends maintaining spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on foreign aid, he is telling us that the Tory party, or at least he himself — as a rather wonderful, non-toxic part of it — cares about the poor in the developing world. The actual effectiveness or otherwise of foreign aid in achieving this aim is irrelevant.

When Osborne says he wants a higher minimum wage, he is saying, ‘I am a good guy who cares about the low-paid and wants them to be better off.’ Never mind the unintended consequences. Just feel the good intentions.

‘I hate 4x4s!’ you declare. This is an assertion that, unlike others, you care about the environment.

It’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are. If you were frank and said, ‘I care about the environment more than most people do’ or ‘I care about the poor more than others’, your vanity and self-aggrandisement would be obvious, as it is with Whole Foods. Anger and outrage disguise your boastfulness.

....

Virtue Signaling: Why Political Debates on the Internet Are So Often Pointless | Foundation for Economic Education

Virtue Signaling: Why Political Debates on the Internet Are So Often Pointless | Foundation for Economic Education

Have you ever noticed how frustrating it is to argue with people about politics on the Internet: like trying to use your head to knock down a brick wall? Well, keep in mind that the feeling is probably mutual.

But also consider the practical utility of that brick wall: the rational interest many people have in being close-minded and wedded to false beliefs. As economist Bryan Caplan has written:

“...irrationality, like ignorance, is sensitive to price, and false beliefs about politics and religion are cheap. If you underestimate the costs of excessive drinking, you can ruin your life. In contrast, if you underestimate the benefits of immigration, or the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, what happens to you? In all probability, the same thing that would have happened to you if you knew the whole truth.”

False beliefs about economics and political philosophy may be devastating in aggregate, but for the individual the cost of choosing to embrace fallacy is negligible. So, as Caplan argues, it is perfectly rational for many to stubbornly cling to false but “emotionally appealing” beliefs. There are no individual, internalized costs that could possibly outweigh whatever emotional benefit the false belief might have.

Caplan wrote the passage quoted above in 2006. Last year, British writer James Bartholomew coined a term and crystallized a concept that is highly complementary to Caplan’s analysis: virtue signaling.

Virtue and Vanity

Most of what passes for political discourse on the Internet does not consist of actual attempts to persuade. Rather, the opiners are like preening birds, chirping for anyone within earshot to signal that, “I am a decent, virtuous person,” usually adding, “unlike the troglodyte rightwingers or degenerate leftists I’m denouncing.”

Such virtue signalling is socially profitable. When others in your social set detect that you faithfully subscribe to that set’s orthodoxy, they become better disposed toward you. This can result in professional, social, even romantic opportunities.

And just as holding a comforting false belief is rock-bottom cheap, so is expressing a socially-advantageous false belief.

But in addition to this rational interest, there is a compulsive, pathological component to virtue signaling as well. That part is baggage from the way we are all raised as kids.

Political Tattling

When children are free to learn from undirected experiences, they learn to conceive of truth as something that guides the successful pursuit of their own goals. But in the domineering, tightly-directed environments of school and the modern household, we condition our children to conceive of truth as received wisdom handed down by authority.

Children are largely deprived of the noble joy of discovering truths as revealed by successful action. Instead they are left with the ignoble gratification of pleasing a taskmaster by reciting an answer that is marked “correct.” And this goes far beyond academics. For the modern child, learning “good behavior” is not about discovering through trial and error what kinds of behaviors are conducive to thriving socially. Instead, it’s about winning praise and avoiding censure from authority figures.

Thanks to this conditioning, we have all become approval-junkies, always on the lookout for our next fix of external validation: for the next little rush of dopamine we get whenever we are patted on the head by others for being a “good boy” or a “good girl,” for exhibiting the right behavior, for giving the right answer, for expressing the right opinion.

This is why the mania for virtue signalling is so ubiquitous, and why orthodoxies are so impervious. Expressing political opinions is not about hammering out useful truths through the crucible of debate, but about signaling one’s own virtue by “tattling” on others for being unvirtuous: for being crypto-commies or crypto-fascists; for being closet racists or race-traitor “cucks;” for being enemies of the poor or apologists for criminals.

Much of our political debate consists of our abused inner children basically calling out, “Teacher, teacher, look at me. I followed the rules, but Johnny didn’t. Johnny is a bad boy, and he said a mean word, too. Teacher look what Trump said. He should say sorry. Teacher look what Hillary did. You should give her detention.”

You can’t expect much enlightenment to emerge from this level of discourse.

Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again

Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again

In 2012 Stanford University’s Centre for Health Policy did the biggest comparison of organic and conventional foods and found no robust evidence for organics being more nutritious. A brand-new review has just repeated its finding: “Scientific studies do not show that organic products are more nutritious and safer than conventional foods.”

Organic farming is sold as good for the environment. This is correct for a single farm field: organic farming uses less energy, emits less greenhouse gasses, nitrous oxide and ammonia and causes less nitrogen leeching than a conventional field. But each organic field yields much, much less. So, to grow the same amount of wheat, spinach or strawberries, you need much more land. That means that average organic produce results in the emission of about as many greenhouse gasses as conventional produce; and about 10 per cent more nitrous oxide, ammonia and acidification. Worse, to produce equivalent quantities, organic farms need to occupy 84 per cent more land – land which can’t be used for forests and genuine nature reserves. For example, to produce the amount of food America does today, but organically, would require increasing its farmland by the size of almost two United Kingdoms. That is the equivalent of eradicating all parklands and wild lands in the lower 48 states.

But surely organics avoid pesticides? No. Organic farming can use any pesticide that is “natural”. This includes copper sulphate, which has resulted in liver disease in vineyard sprayers in France. Pyrethrin is another organic pesticide; one study shows a 3.7-fold increase in leukaemia among farmers who handled pyrethrins compared to those who had not.