Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Madhatter's avatar

Yeah, great, fully entertaining and clever.

But, alas, much ado about nothing. Women need men and vice versa. Beyond all that crazy media output.-This is a strong tie, stronger than most propaganda. The aim of all that bullshit is clear enough: alienation division separation abortion of biological basic instinct.

Expand full comment
ebear's avatar

The corruption of feminism is simply one instance of a general principle: That all institutions become corrupted over time, because humans are corrupt(ible). The process goes something like this:

1. a revolutionary new idea enters the public domain.

2. initial proponents are convinced of its validity and become strong proselytizers.

3. acolytes arrive and expand on the work of the originators.

4. the new idea spreads on the basis of an apparent advantage over previous ideas.

5. initial rejection by established authorities (guardians of old ideas) is overrun by either the strength of the new idea (its broad appeal, in the case of feminism) or a new generation not as steeped in the previous orthodoxy adopts it as its mantra.

6. people start building careers around the new idea, in the process adding their own personal biases and/or agendas, which diffuses or dilutes the original idea and generates factions.

7. the state gets involved in an oversight role, or a covert manipulative role in support of, what else? The State. From there, it's all downhill.

This is why I refuse to attach myself to movements or ideologies or anything that expresses itself with the suffix ...ism. They're all just 'belief systems.' They may work within a limited domain or time-frame, but they all suffer the effects of the human element, which has tons of empirical evidence pointing to corruption as a constant in any of these equations, no matter how well grounded they may be.

Since we're talking about general principles (well, I am anyway) there's one that stands out above all others in my mind: you don't put the cart before the horse. That is to say, you don't start from a theory and then attempt to prove it (no matter the cost). You first gather lots of data, construct hypotheses, then test them where possible. Same rule applies to social theories as to scientific ones. That it's difficult to falsify social theories without enormous human costs is a clear reason to be skeptical of all of them, because none of them meet the definition of a valid scientific theory. They are mostly just Big Thoughts, as they used to say in the USSR, and unfortunately, a lot of people like to think them.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts