This is a litmus test between conservatives and postliberals. Conservatives still think the Queensbury rules of politics are applicable. Postliberals realize what time it is, that we live in a Nietzschean world now, and what will improve things is not politeness but power.
"This woman will never have a position of power or prominence, but she does play a role in propagating her beliefs to her family and community."
Let's face it: that's power. And the fact that she's aligned with the most powerful forces in society, if only indirectly, gives her even more power. Like I said, she said what she said because for years, not a single person effectively pushed back against her. Then she decided to celebrate the attempt on Trump's life and finally, it caught up to her. She should've quit while she was ahead.
People like her are the ones who tell everyone else what to think. They are very much a part of the problem and should be treated as such.
I'm also astounded at how much conversation really took place over a single cashier losing her job. If that's enough to cause consternation on the Right, we'll never be able to wield power effectively, because politics is a messy business which produces plenty of collateral damage.
Our politics has been empty for decades. That's over. The Trump lawfare demonstrates that politics is personally dangerous again (who will our next Preston Brooks be?) and to enter a risky game, you must actually believe in something. You must think of yourself as an ubermensch, able to define a moral order and wield power to bring it about.
The time of the safe, squishy, spineless politicians is over. It may continue in Congress somewhat, but the Presidency has morphed into a strong-executive office. Expect candidates who are ready to wield that power unapologetically. I predict that in 20 years, we will look at Harris or Trump or Vance or Newsome not as extreme outliers but as the moderates of their respective visions.
People say an American Caesar would never work. I don't know; the Left has hardly gone full-bore and they wield the power of the federal government very well.
If we want to see the country return to being a federal union, it's got to be done from the top-down. It's not really about giving power back to the states, it's about eliminating the opposition standing in the way of that.
From my corner of the military, the issue of females in positions is the number one thing we have always been "not allowed" to notice. Especially early on in my career, it was an unspoken truth that you'd watch the female copilot a little bit extra until you knew her better. A lot of females seemed to want to be a "female pilot" as opposed to a pilot, and this gives an impression of the girl playacting at the role. The institution is happy to push them along in pilot training and beyond where a male might have washed out. The institution also then rewards them with so many "women in aviation" type events. Race or the LGBT++ etc etc stuff doesn't get pushed with the fervor they push women. There were a few years where we actually got some serious women and they do just fine, although the trend seems to be reversing.
But I don't carte blanche accept the argument of "it's fine if everyone is held to the same standard." Men and women are socially different, and there's been some resentment on the fact that the institutions' answer has been attempting to change the majority male social dynamics to better suit female sensibilities. There is a valid discussion to be had about what jobs in the military should be open to both genders. I suspect the answer is that more than just front line combat roles would benefit from being male only, but where those lines are exactly is a discussion our culture couldn't hope to have honestly right now.
"Race or the LGBT++ etc etc stuff doesn't get pushed with the fervor they push women."
That's interesting. It seems these days race and LGBTQ+ is the most important thing to the military. It's a reminder that there's a limited amount of appeasement to go around for all aggrieved groups.
I've always said: if a large amount of accommodation and change is required to allow someone to do a job, then they're probably not fit for the job. Even ADA uses the term "reasonable accommodation," implying you shouldn't need to wholesale renovate a workplace to allow someone to work there. You can say that culture needs to change, but only with respect to its ability to produce better warfighters.
I used to think the remedy would be for a disproportionate number of women to die in war, but looking at the reactions to Ukrainian women dying in war, I'm not so sure any longer. Some of that might be because they're not Americans. I feel like if large numbers of American women were dying in war, society might finally be willing to have an honest discussion about this, but I also feel like they'd just point out that "War disproprortionately impacts women. How do we make war more fair to women?"
"Millions of men die in war: women most affected." I think women get the big focus because of all the "oppressed" groups, they have the most noticable difference day to day. Sure there can be some cultural differences among racial groups, but a white man, a black man, and a Hispanic man all sitting together are going to have an easier time building camaraderie than the entire group would if you added one mildly attractive female to the mix. Add to that the often clumsy ways the military has attempted to address the problems of sexual assault (which can also be weaponized by females), and no one can really feel at ease around each other.
Edit to add: gay men still act like men for the most part (at least those I've met in the military). We do have one transgender (not in a flying role thankfully), but for both they are not in any meaningful number to really impact the day to day culture.
Irony, as people like Mary Harrington point out, is that women do acknowledge their unique vulnerability, but only on their terms. "We are highly vulnerable to men, but we should allowed to be cops and soldiers so we can kick the asses of dangerous men." It doesn't make sense. We might teach our kids self-defense, but we never go as far as to suggest kids confront dangerous people. They'll gladly accept you saying that women are disproportionately impacted by war (not sure that's even really true), but if you say, "That's why they should be kept outside the line of fire," they accuse you of sexism. It's unbelievable. At this point, I've grown so cynical on the matter, I say send them all to war. Let reality settle the score.
I know of several transgenders; almost all of them serve in the military. In fact, it seems to be a particularly acute phenomenon in the military.
Thank you for clearing the fog for me on this issue. I have been trying to find the proper moral principles that apply. If conservatives acted more on their righteous indignations we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. It’s time we finally start fighting back. We have been in a war for decades and we’re just beginning to notice.
I largely agree with everything here. There are levels. And I don’t care much for mob actions. Certainly it is not uncommon to harbor the thought that one wishes another that they perceive to be evil would die. It is another level to publicly wish death upon them (or in trumps case to regret they weren’t murdered). (Like saying “I hope someone kills them” is not classified as a criminal threat). These things don’t really rise to the level of crimes but should be considered evil and shameful and informally punished through social pressure. Unfortunately one side has normalized celebrating these sentiments, and therein lies a big part of the problem. When it rises to the level of a threat to perform the act of killing someone, then you have an actual crime. Don’t really hear much about enforcing the law against this kind of infraction though.
Worth reading: https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-home-depot-lady-must-be-canceled/
This is a litmus test between conservatives and postliberals. Conservatives still think the Queensbury rules of politics are applicable. Postliberals realize what time it is, that we live in a Nietzschean world now, and what will improve things is not politeness but power.
That's a great op-ed. I liked this part:
"This woman will never have a position of power or prominence, but she does play a role in propagating her beliefs to her family and community."
Let's face it: that's power. And the fact that she's aligned with the most powerful forces in society, if only indirectly, gives her even more power. Like I said, she said what she said because for years, not a single person effectively pushed back against her. Then she decided to celebrate the attempt on Trump's life and finally, it caught up to her. She should've quit while she was ahead.
People like her are the ones who tell everyone else what to think. They are very much a part of the problem and should be treated as such.
I'm also astounded at how much conversation really took place over a single cashier losing her job. If that's enough to cause consternation on the Right, we'll never be able to wield power effectively, because politics is a messy business which produces plenty of collateral damage.
The Right is slowly realizing what time it is.
Our politics has been empty for decades. That's over. The Trump lawfare demonstrates that politics is personally dangerous again (who will our next Preston Brooks be?) and to enter a risky game, you must actually believe in something. You must think of yourself as an ubermensch, able to define a moral order and wield power to bring it about.
The time of the safe, squishy, spineless politicians is over. It may continue in Congress somewhat, but the Presidency has morphed into a strong-executive office. Expect candidates who are ready to wield that power unapologetically. I predict that in 20 years, we will look at Harris or Trump or Vance or Newsome not as extreme outliers but as the moderates of their respective visions.
People say an American Caesar would never work. I don't know; the Left has hardly gone full-bore and they wield the power of the federal government very well.
If we want to see the country return to being a federal union, it's got to be done from the top-down. It's not really about giving power back to the states, it's about eliminating the opposition standing in the way of that.
From my corner of the military, the issue of females in positions is the number one thing we have always been "not allowed" to notice. Especially early on in my career, it was an unspoken truth that you'd watch the female copilot a little bit extra until you knew her better. A lot of females seemed to want to be a "female pilot" as opposed to a pilot, and this gives an impression of the girl playacting at the role. The institution is happy to push them along in pilot training and beyond where a male might have washed out. The institution also then rewards them with so many "women in aviation" type events. Race or the LGBT++ etc etc stuff doesn't get pushed with the fervor they push women. There were a few years where we actually got some serious women and they do just fine, although the trend seems to be reversing.
But I don't carte blanche accept the argument of "it's fine if everyone is held to the same standard." Men and women are socially different, and there's been some resentment on the fact that the institutions' answer has been attempting to change the majority male social dynamics to better suit female sensibilities. There is a valid discussion to be had about what jobs in the military should be open to both genders. I suspect the answer is that more than just front line combat roles would benefit from being male only, but where those lines are exactly is a discussion our culture couldn't hope to have honestly right now.
"Race or the LGBT++ etc etc stuff doesn't get pushed with the fervor they push women."
That's interesting. It seems these days race and LGBTQ+ is the most important thing to the military. It's a reminder that there's a limited amount of appeasement to go around for all aggrieved groups.
I've always said: if a large amount of accommodation and change is required to allow someone to do a job, then they're probably not fit for the job. Even ADA uses the term "reasonable accommodation," implying you shouldn't need to wholesale renovate a workplace to allow someone to work there. You can say that culture needs to change, but only with respect to its ability to produce better warfighters.
I used to think the remedy would be for a disproportionate number of women to die in war, but looking at the reactions to Ukrainian women dying in war, I'm not so sure any longer. Some of that might be because they're not Americans. I feel like if large numbers of American women were dying in war, society might finally be willing to have an honest discussion about this, but I also feel like they'd just point out that "War disproprortionately impacts women. How do we make war more fair to women?"
"Millions of men die in war: women most affected." I think women get the big focus because of all the "oppressed" groups, they have the most noticable difference day to day. Sure there can be some cultural differences among racial groups, but a white man, a black man, and a Hispanic man all sitting together are going to have an easier time building camaraderie than the entire group would if you added one mildly attractive female to the mix. Add to that the often clumsy ways the military has attempted to address the problems of sexual assault (which can also be weaponized by females), and no one can really feel at ease around each other.
Edit to add: gay men still act like men for the most part (at least those I've met in the military). We do have one transgender (not in a flying role thankfully), but for both they are not in any meaningful number to really impact the day to day culture.
Irony, as people like Mary Harrington point out, is that women do acknowledge their unique vulnerability, but only on their terms. "We are highly vulnerable to men, but we should allowed to be cops and soldiers so we can kick the asses of dangerous men." It doesn't make sense. We might teach our kids self-defense, but we never go as far as to suggest kids confront dangerous people. They'll gladly accept you saying that women are disproportionately impacted by war (not sure that's even really true), but if you say, "That's why they should be kept outside the line of fire," they accuse you of sexism. It's unbelievable. At this point, I've grown so cynical on the matter, I say send them all to war. Let reality settle the score.
I know of several transgenders; almost all of them serve in the military. In fact, it seems to be a particularly acute phenomenon in the military.
Thank you for clearing the fog for me on this issue. I have been trying to find the proper moral principles that apply. If conservatives acted more on their righteous indignations we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. It’s time we finally start fighting back. We have been in a war for decades and we’re just beginning to notice.
I largely agree with everything here. There are levels. And I don’t care much for mob actions. Certainly it is not uncommon to harbor the thought that one wishes another that they perceive to be evil would die. It is another level to publicly wish death upon them (or in trumps case to regret they weren’t murdered). (Like saying “I hope someone kills them” is not classified as a criminal threat). These things don’t really rise to the level of crimes but should be considered evil and shameful and informally punished through social pressure. Unfortunately one side has normalized celebrating these sentiments, and therein lies a big part of the problem. When it rises to the level of a threat to perform the act of killing someone, then you have an actual crime. Don’t really hear much about enforcing the law against this kind of infraction though.