On Tumblr Leftism
If there was ever something so juvenile and insipid that required a philosophical and intellectual analysis (besides consumerism, viral narcissism and arguably religion) it would be that which I describe as Tumblr Leftism. Perhaps a clarification of this term is required. There are three main varieties of the drug – Veganism, Racialism and Feminism – but it overall can be defined as something which on the surface to the politically ignorant and unintelligent seems to be a left-wing creed or mentality, but on further analysis – for those who require it, frankly, and I say this with no pride because I don’t deem it much of an accomplishment – it’s a piece of propaganda for the uncritical, psychologically troubled (who typically share more with the Right than the Left) and those who wish to rage against either real grievances and supply ridiculous or nonexistent solutions, or “tabloid grievances” that’s essentially also “Liberal Problems” such as scantily clad women in magazines and the two homosexual characters in Modern Family not kissing – the horror.
I use the term Liberal Problems as a satire of the easily recognizable meme “First World Problems” because it’s very much the same animal, merely a politicized and typically outraged and indignant version of such. People who I want to categorize as Hipsters, but I’ll instead refer to those who suffer from “Tumblred Perception” are those who at-best have a correct mentality of ethics (in-that they are against homophobia, racism and even occasionally racialism, sexism and cruelty to animals; at their worst however they are anti-straight, or CIS, anti-white, anti-male and calls anyone who would have a cheeseburger either unethical or a murderer – no I’m not joking) but have absolutely no understanding of the most basic laws of cause-and-effect and certainly don’t possess a materialistic or class-based frame work to work off of. Like the New Atheists – though they are typically far more rational and intelligent than Tumblr Leftists – they are idealists and ideologues for particular causes, rather than those who wish to increase the basic standard of living, intelligence, opportunities and freedoms of every person and animals where applicable and to the extent that is allowed of lower animals.
Incompetence and ignorance is TLs at their finest. At their worst they are just as moralistic as the Religious Right, without an understanding of ethics, deontological and fundamentalist giving edicts rather than promoting critical thinking and humanism, and instead instilling rationalizations, justifications for prejudice and ideological constructions of their own warped realities. Tumblr Leftism uses the cheap armor of “social justice” while ignoring almost every principle of individual rights and ethics pertaining to the conduct of individuals. Racist, sexist, superficial, TLs quickly blame the average individual (as long as he’s a white male) for society’s problems rather than taking a thorough analytic approach to society and its ills.
If philosophy is not viewing the world as it immediately appears, and learning not to think and approach things as one would instinctively, Tumblr Leftism is the furthest thing from philosophy. At-the-very-least religion has some transcendental qualities and accepts that human beings surpass animals, (though they claim this in some ways that are incorrect) having a unique and invaluable essence of sentience and being that they wrongly view as mystical and the presence of an immaterial soul. TLs however embrace the worst of Schopenhauer and accept the “animal rights” of moralistic swine rather than the well-reasoned Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill for example, or Socialists who fight for animal rights in the sense of them being treated ethically – for both their benefit and our own – before the slaughter. Or rather it’s not people eating meat that’ the problem but for-profit industries and industrialized farming that’s the source of many ills throughout the Animal Kingdom sentient or not. Ironically they also possess a form of sexist attitudes that surpass even Schopenhauer’s, and prefer the feminism of the psychotics who worship the protagonist in “I Shot Andy Warhol” rather than John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx or his associate Friedrich Engels.
Now is where it seems proper to go through the three individual strands and find the faults and failings of their arguments, ideals and given solutions. I’ll start with Racialism, considering it’s the most obvious I suppose, and if I start with any of the other two I’ll have little if anything unique to say about this topic, for the three share in a particular failing of logic and understanding.
Blaming people for their ancestor’s mistakes and trying to create a systematic ideology and mentality out of them, is just as if not more absurd than the Bible claiming the sins of the father shall be passed down to his descendants multiple times over. If the Bible was arguing that propensity towards quick temper, poor reasoning and other psychological traits that leads to poor ethical conduct and living standards can be inherited genetically then it would have a rare success in being both realistic, poignant and pointful in attachment to Jesus’ preaching of being compassionate, forgiving and realizing that people are irreparably flawed and we all have our crosses to bear – however this is not the case and instead is an example where the Bible degenerates (though perhaps that’s not the correct term because it rarely if ever leaves it) to tribalism and collectivism. In-a-sense it’s even worse than the pseudo-science of genetic-based racial superiority or claiming distinctive differences in personality and character, (i.e. racial stereotypes being derived from, “that’s just how they are” rather than various social forces making them so if the stereotype possesses any validity) because at-least the junk scientists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – who would be carried into the twentieth century by the Nazis and other small groups that would eventually be relegated to conspiracy theory chatrooms on the internet, at-least in the industrialized world – tried to explain their theories and racial prejudices scientifically, the racialist argument of a section of Tumblr consists of: White people have done a lot of bad things; therefore white people are bad and all non-whites are either ethically superior or in a place of perpetual pity and compassion. Now I of course recognize that racism and to a larger degree racialism is a large problem persisting in the world, I use the word “persisting” because it’s caused by forces conscious of propagating these views, largely derivative of living in a class-based society, where you can blame society’s ills on anything essentially asides from the Capitalists. It is still taboo to criticize or even scrutinize religion, but the trend of New Atheists being listened to – though mocked on Conservative shows like Bill O’Reilly’s Propaganda Hour which recently argued against marijuana legalization by arguing, “would you want your baby to do it?” – and accepted for their credentials while Socialists, in-fact not even merely Socialists but anyone who speaks outside the Republican-Democrat, i.e. Repugnocrat to steal a phrase from Jello (which isn't spelled the way the name brand is I'm happy to report. Though it would be a moderately funny piece of irony if it were.) Biafra, paradigm are largely ignored and consciously censored through relegation.
It’s not only possessing a poor understanding of ethics, cause-and-effect and human nature, but also of history in the most plain and factual of terms. You don’t need to understand Marxism or Historical Materialism to know that throughout history there have been many bad people and many bad groups of people that systematically and routinely did abhorrent things – and based on this conclude (Though the people rational enough to use useful deductive logic would be unlikely to start with a racial frame to begin with, though many brilliant men like Thomas Jefferson had the misfortune of doing so. And to clarify Jefferson conceded to a type of racialism but wasn’t racist; that is, thought that Africans were “naturally” or intrinsically more submissive than whites but regretted that it was so.) that human evil very-likely has a naturalistic source, whether it’s derivative of his overall nature, economic and social circumstance, upbringing, lack of education, some unique medical or psychological malady or some combination of all of them. I could give you a list full of Genghis Khans and Pol Pots but frankly I think this is a claim that needs to be stated rather than provided evidence for. Evidence in any claim is essential of course, but those who would dispute this type of simple statement will rationalize away the evidence by claiming its either inaccurate or construct a narrative where non-whites do bad things not based on their ethnicity, while whites, blacks, Hispanics, or any other group they dislike, do bad things based on their ethnicity as a fundamental building block of their person. This is the type of doublethink you find in Tumblr Leftism as a whole particularly in its Racialism and brand of Feminism.
Vegans possess a type of double think in believing eating meat is a crime, is tantamount to murder some of them will even claim – and although the preposterousness of the claim is obvious, at-least these “Ideological Vegans” have the courage or the depth of insanity to go to the logical conclusion of their convictions and state it – and shouldn’t be deemed as a non-moral (that is divorced from the realm of ethical dealings) just because human beings are part of the Animal Kingdom. But if this is the case shouldn’t every omnivore and carnivore be put to death? Or perhaps, if like myself they oppose the death penalty unless they are dealing with a murderer who had a large source of Government or economic power, (a stance I highly doubt they have the cognitive faculties to have considering the nuanced and contextual nature of ethics is lost on these people, who – TLs, not IVs in particular – make the largest generalizations surpassing at-times even Religious Conservatives.) simply put all animals in cages (which they are also against, something which holds some sway to me, at-least if they didn’t go to the absurd degrees that they do) and force feed them plant matter regardless of their dietary requirements. If human beings being animals and naturally eat meat is not an excuse for what they deem inexcusable behavior, why is this rationale not placed on all other creatures who roam the Earth? it’s not a position founded on reason – clearly – but one founded on emotions and psychological illness. Now if they weren’t so self-righteous and vehement (which as I believe I’ve already said is a common trait of the TLs) and they didn’t promote the end of individual rights or logic in ethics – or logic in general – I would support their aspirations to increase the standard of living of animals for it’s a just cause of which I agree with.
I hold that human beings should be our first priority, but the industrialization and incredibly unethical treatment of farm animals for profits is something that affects human beings as-well. Like all other issues, because they lack a Materialistic or class-based understanding of human nature, these people jump to insane conclusions that white people do bad things because they’re white, or male, or human, ignoring that most of the unethical practices against animals – though they consider the simple act of domestication immoral, though it increases the animals population and living standards – are very recent and a result of market forces and the profit motive. But to focus slightly longer on the uniquely misanthropic and not only nonmaterial but “anti-nature” element of Tumblr, (whether it’s reflected in their shoddy prose or not. Snap.) I should allow them what would most-likely be their rebuttal (if they knew what arguments kept them looking half-sane) that human beings have a wider range and fundamental aspect of choice that other animals lack, and in a sense they would be correct, but this does not reflect human beings dietary nature or even choices which in the past was confined to the region the primate was resigned to, but now we humans have a expansive plethora of choices limited only to the food available, the sciences involved in transportation, economic affairs and our own culinary genius – yet human beings fundamentally lack “choice” in the sense that their diet is restricted partially by the things I mentioned and partially by psychological factors, taste buds, the food that one ate as a child among numerous other factors. We human beings have an illusion of choice and we do have an understanding and form(s) of ethics that all other known creatures lack (most other creatures would never for a moment consider the well-being of his fellow kin on other branches of the foodchain for example) but this does not free us from the laws of existence or our own particular existences whether referring to the species or individual. This is something that Tumblr Feminists in particular fail to comprehend. The following will be by far the lengthiest section of things I’m tackling, because Tumblr Feminism is a variety or sect of a larger movement given the most credence in contemporary culture, and because I’ll be examining human sexuality as well-as the nature of gender differences and identity in a comprehensive fashion.
Firstly I suppose I should examine Tumblr Feminism and point out its patent absurdity. Overall synonymous with Radical Feminism, TF seeks to disparage men as a whole for the actions for a few, claim societies either in the first or third world need Feminism for irrational reasons for they do not provide the solution let-alone give an accurate or thorough description of the problem and blame “the Patriarchy”, “CIS” individuals, or TWME (The White Male Establishment) for problems that have either an economic or religious cause, isn’t a problem to begin with, or is an unfortunate reality of biology. Hating men for the awful things some men do is exactly equivocal to hating all minorities because a black person stole your car radio – do people still do this by the way? Not only are both an irrational simplification and overgeneralization, but is forgetting the root cause of crime being primarily economic and psychological. If you want to see an embarrassingly obvious portrayal of this, simply look up the episode of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, where Michael More makes his callow misandry (if men can be misandrists which although it defies the specifics of the definition as it exists I would contend just as women can retain and purport misogynistic attitudes.) clear when he says not only that essentially all problems are caused by men, (and even goes as far as blaming men for being fishermen and causing overfishing, when of course overpopulation, the terrible maintaining of resources of Capitalists as well as them destroying resources with various forms of pollution among other factors are the fault, not fisherman. Blaming a fisherman for overfishing is akin to blaming a Chinese sweatshop laborer putting together TVs and laptops twelve hours a day for consumerism and vapidity in America caused in part by electronic devices or more particularly how they’re used in Capitalist society – though human nature and the anti-Intellectualism of America are to be blamed as well.) but nature (as if it was a conscious force which shows how intelligent he is, the comprehension he has of evolution or even basic biology and that psychologically he is very much a religious person) is essentially trying to collectively extinguish us because we lose our hair and don’t live quite as long.
On my second point, on various cultures needing Feminism, here is a scroll of hilarity that I think debunks this quite well – if you can tell which ones are serious and which ones are satire please let me know because I can seldom tell anymore. Imgur.com/a/RrNmV the claim we need Feminism to right some supposed wrongs – let’s use rape as one of their few examples in the modern world that is actually a problem – is simply ludicrous. If someone is going to rape someone, I don’t think a course in ethics or gender studies is going to help. He probably already missed the economic, psychological, dietary and educational variables he needed to be an individual of stable mind who had a basic level of empathy to not violate them; but Feminists, being another variation of Idealist, fail to see this.
Not only does Feminism fail to give a comprehensive and analytic diagnosis and rational treatment plan for society’s ills, but ignores the real reasons why these problems exist. They also tend to focus on that which isn’t an issue except to the hyper-sensitive and those who apparently don’t exist on the planet Earth either physically in its amount of suffering or mentally in well, I think you can figure out that one. Feminists calling pornography and voluntary prostitution a form of exploitation is essentially the equivalent of calling people who watch reality TV shows moral monsters and calling the idiots on those shows a suppressed demographic of downtrodden crushed souls. People who watch Ice Road Truckers and Pawn Stars are stupid, but not immoral (at-least not for watching drizzle, statistically stupid people are more immoral, so I suppose these type of things shows that Virtue Ethics expresses the ethics in what would naturally consider in the non-moral magisteria); just as people jacking off to pornography usually aren’t the most intelligent, but one’s sex drive does not diminish with increasing IQ, so actually those who act on their sex drives aren’t doing anything either wrong or symptomatic of a “wrong” or lowly existence, like Americans wasting away watching pop-culture garbage or sports. One thing that needs to be mentioned about Feminists is that they claim to have a “radical” and “revolutionary” creed and way of looking at the world, when effectively they share just as much of their stances and perhaps even more importantly their psychology with the Catholic Church than with Progressive Atheists and Materialists. But this ludicrousness should be self-evident and I frankly want to pass ragging on intellectual infants as quickly as I can and move on to issues of human nature and essence that I find far more stimulating – that’s an attempt to be clever by the way. You should be impressed.
Gender roles and human sexuality are things that I find very engrossing and have recently token up quite a bit of my reserves of libido – that’s psychic energy – on. One of the things that’s become quite clear to me as I’ve developed is the perpetuation of gender roles that shares the place of monogamy in-that many people would be far happier following their natural inclinations and acting as they would genuinely, or rather “be their genuine selves” or better yet focus on bettering themselves rather than conforming to the assignments of characteristics on both genders. This is an issue that Feminism talks about, but they both almost always assign the wrong cause – blaming “Patriarchal forces” rather than religion, human nature and lack of intelligence and reflection which allows people to see past surface level cultural manifestations and see a multitude of various potential outcomes, rather than how things are done by tradition, immediate impulse or otherwise – and often ignore the male side of gender expectations.
That is not to say that the nature of gender identity is entirely or even mostly derived from our environment, it very-likely is something that is derived from the respective make-ups of the male and female brain. If you think that the majority of mathematicians, philosophers, inventers and psychologists being mostly male are simply due-to the subjugation of women, then I’m sorry but you’re not someone to be taken seriously. Now in JS Mill’s On the Subjugation on Women – which I have not read in full and will likely have further comment on when finished – he rightly says that we are not sure to what extent gender roles are derived from genetics and brain development and that which is culturally derived. This is something that needs far more research on though I admit that I am ignorant of essentially all studies that have come out on the subject. However here is one short article I’ve found that in finding found rather thought-provoking: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently. But I feel regardless of my empirical ignorance on the matter the distinction must be made between those who subconsciously or explicitly through peer pressure enforce gender roles from those – who is essentially all of us to minor degrees – who deviate from it in one fashion or another, and the mere presence of gender roles which has its evolutionary basis.
Schopenhauer would be one who through a combination of misogyny and intelligence would see this distinction quite well. For in his Essay On Women, he points out that the European “Lady” as he repeatedly mockingly refers to the rich bourgeoisie of fairer characteristics (which is actually one of the more laughable parts of the essay, that is, criticizing the term “fair sex” and saying that this could never be the case if men weren’t so horny. I have aesthetically appreciated the male form, the herculean embodiment of strength, flexibility and agility; however, if you think that it compares with the grace, beauty, style and attributes that one would assign to an Amanda Seyfried for example, who isn’t simply sexy but the archetype representation of human physical beauty – something tells me this is something I needn’t explain further – then we simply have a difference of the aesthetic, but I feel there is more to be enjoyed in what I prefer over your preference.) is one who has social characteristics “unnatural” or at the very least not occurring naturally and overall unbecoming of women. He claims that women are rather unhappy in this place of cultured freedom and would prefer essentially being a housewife having no great labor “of the mind or body.” He shares a common confusion and a hard problem that Hume mentions as an impossibility to discover (that is the distinction between causation and correlation) that is the possible confliction ‘tween women as he views them in his society as women “as they are” and there true nature to whatever extent the thing actually exists. He seems to be making a mistake of making a posteriori statements and them rationalizing them as something that is verging upon an a priori remark, that is, something that posits an eternal condition or nature of a thing based on limited experience and data of it. This would be like to have a society where all dogs are tamed and domesticated, and say that it is impossible for a dog to ever bite, snarl, or otherwise be unruly. And yes, I’ve just realized that perhaps I shouldn’t have compared women to well-trained animals of domestication, and you’re free to insert your own “bitch” pun here.
However, I must confess that though he is rather - as I’ve said – misogynistic, he seems to at-times accurately describe what seems to be feminine nature. Women do seem to be duller and easily entertained than men, more anti-intellectual, religious, and care about things of style rather than things of substance. It’s relatively clear that he is right in the claim that they are not designed for physically laborious tasks (unless one considers child birth and carrying the weight of two for several months) but whether the same is true mentally I’m not sure we’re in the position to say. There are of course many intelligent women who have performed great and noble feats of the intellect, but to reference an earlier point, that in no way is an argument against the most brilliant thinkers of human history being mostly men. I personally feel that there isn’t a wide gulf of intellect between the sexes, but of ego and ambition. That is, it’s clear that men seem to be more likely to be commandeering and crave some form of achievement whether artistic, intellectual, commercial, or physical, while women seem to be more content enjoying superficial and trivial things. That is not to say that most men carry this Nietzschean spark, let’s call it, to do great things and in doing so become great, but there do seem to be many more men who carry this rare flare of bold grandeur than the fairer sex I regret to say. I’m sure part of this is cultural, but as I’ve said earlier, it seems ridiculously foolish and naïve to say it is entirely so.
Of course when Schopenhauer says that women should essentially have no rights and be wards of a male family member or husband he shows his archaic Conservative side and his lack of empathy, while in his first essay of the collection he considers the increase of which – empathy not the lack-of – to be essentially the most primal thing to decreasing the amount of suffering in the world which I think it would be safe to argue he considers the most important issue there is. In many ways Schopenhauer is a genius ahead of his time, though in others he is the embodiment of his time as a bourgeoisie who is indignant about suffering yet was pro-Monarchy and was against revolutionary activity especially when it potentially threatened his own financial status of leisure. I would continue on his essay, but I feel I’ve commented on all its main points, and wish to leave the minor ones as encouragement for you to read for yourselves. Schopenhauer is one of the few philosophers I’ve read in-length, and I can say without hesitation or reconsideration that he is the finest writer of philosophy there is, right in-front of Plato, Nietzsche, and at his greater moments stylistically, Marx.
It’s clear however that this is an issue that is keenly psychological and not intellectual, that is, those who purport a type of feminism, like all forms of Tumblr Leftism and essentially all ideologies actually, suffer from a lack of perspective and objectivity, rather than a lack of intellect which is typically present as well. One of the greatest victories Freudians have in my estimation, is that they’ve managed to have the moderately religious to essentially argue on their behalf. Saying things such-as, “of course we don’t actually believe the story of Noah’s Ark literally, or Adam and Eve, we aren’t morons, but if you try to dissuade those who do believe in these stories, you’re taking away from them a great source of comfort.” Not exactly Freudian in the strictest sense, but complicit in the mentality that believing in falsehoods isn’t necessarily a detrimental thing and in some a necessary thing for their psychological survival and comfort. It’s true that this sickly and irrational form of comfort is something we shouldn’t strive to dissolve in existing men and women of considerable age, but only because it would be a waste of time attempting to do so. What we need to do is change the material and political nature of things – as has happened slowly over the decades which shows the rise of Atheism – that increases the standard of living and a decrease in religious belief or a need to believe in religious bullshit. A source of comfort Nietzsche correctly compared to alcohol in ignoring one’s problems rather than confronting them, and actually adding many problems to the original both physically and psychologically. And the same is to be said of all ideologies to the extent that they don’t wish to create legitimate discussion or viewpoints to be taken seriously but fanatically purport their own viewpoint. Debate is important, but not against those who have already been thoroughly discredited and show no signs of being intellectually honest and working with us on whatever it is we wish to do either politically or intellectually. An obvious example is the type of feminists who claim that there is no such thing as “feminine nature” yet blame masculine nature for female suffering.
One of the most blatant signs that Tumblr Leftists really share in the views and psychological traits of the Right is in their Anti-intellectualism, anti-scientific attitudes and their form of argument being essentially derived from emotions, and rather petty and erratic emotions at-that, rather than reason or intellect. We’ve all joked about people who take “trigger warnings” seriously and those who believe science is invalid because its “run by” white men who perpetuate something laughably called “thin privilege” by saying being a fat piece of lard is unhealthy, but it is something that we should make sure is never given credence or respectability outside of internet pages and small gatherings. If these Hipsters and “Level Five Vegans” (to cite the comedy genius of The Simpsons) want to titter away about culturally propagated sexual oppression in magazines and “make the personal political” which is one of the most stupid phrases I’ve ever heard, in-part because of what they mean by it, and also in-part if you read it by words and not intent alone you would believe that they view modern politics to be something too intellectual or academic where people essentially never discuss matters that effect them personally in political ways. In-regards to class issues it’s clear as transparent water that meaningful and accurate discussion on political discussion must be made so the average American or citizen of their respective land might hear it, but this is a problem with Governments and Corporations that the “philosophies” of Tumblr are as ill-equipped to tackle both intellectually and socially as a dying child is ill-equipped to understand or combat against polio without the proper tools – and blaming white people for disease, which I’m guessing many TLs do in the case of the deaths of Native Americans. Though it should be obvious and unnecessary to comment on, (but feminists and other TLs automatically at-times attack you for being racist, for example, when you criticize their idiocy and not add, “I don’t think black people’s head should be shoved through pikes) many Indians did die shamefully in feuds with racist Christian fundamentalist settlers in either wars, transportation or outright extermination, but to blame Europeans for spreading to Native Americans bacteria they didn’t even know existed is equivocal to blaming a peanut salesman for the death of someone with a peanut allergy before knowledge of such a thing even was discovered let-alone common knowledge.
To conclude I’d simply like to say that I suggest you see the debate of Christopher Hitchens and two others (whose names I regret to be ignorant of) arguing over the right to Freedom of Speech. Those on the right of the house, those who say that offensive speech against Muslims, Catholics, women, or any other group of people should be censored embody a large element of the “Social Justice Warrior” mentality. Let’s censor everyone to make the world a better place. I was going to comment more on Engels’ Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, for it’s the given source of what’s called “Proletariat Feminism.” I have yet to read it in-length, so I don’t feel prepared to give anything resembling a thorough analysis on it; however, I have read an synopsis of it, and even without doing so could guess that he speaks of marriage and relations between men and women in his time period, much of which is now only relevant in historical reflections and the malleability of society, human relations and human nature as a whole. Overall, as I’ve already stated, Tumblr Leftists and SJWs fail to comprehend the most simple points and reject the mentality of what it means to be truly left-wing: meaning to support freedom and equality in the Positive and Negative Liberty sense of the word, with a comprehensive intellectual and materialist explanation of human problems at-times including human psychology as-well. Confusing cause-and-effect, sources of immorality and what is ethical at-all Tumblr Leftists are those who want to wish and censor away human problems and nature, because there entire sickly desire to be perceived as suppressed and downtrodden outcasts is entirely based on wishful thinking, just as the Slave Morality as Nietzsche illustrates is the sickly desire to capitulate oneself upon God and force others to submit as well so the “Oppressors” will be destroyed and we’ll all be freed in the shackles of eternal ownership. Nietzsche talks about how Christian attitudes and mores have perpetuated society even in its supposed secular ethicists (which I agree in only in-part, particularly in Kant, though it’s obvious he wishes to save Christianity from scientific and secular encroachment) and have dominated Western Civilization. Thankfully we’ll very-likely never have to worry about a society where the words “Patriarchy” and “Rape Culture” have become commonly accepted terms of discussion and supposed non-Social Justice Warriors are actually arguing the views of Valerie Solanas.