Public Shit Tests
Posted by Spandrell on
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/895237529192058881
Will he pass the test? What's the proper way to do it? Modern politics requires having public PUAs who can manage this sort of stuff.
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/895237529192058881
Will he pass the test? What's the proper way to do it? Modern politics requires having public PUAs who can manage this sort of stuff.
36 comments
[…] Public Shit Tests […]
Its very rare public officials who make these statements are PUA. In my experience they're usually stating the obvious but completely unaware the shit storm they're about to be engulfed in. The best response is doubling down, mansplain these bitches.
Russia handled its problem with QUANGO Cossacks flogging Pussy Riot members and by jailing a few. It worked pretty well
"best" is a tricky question. There are standard ways to pass shit-tests, like Agree and Amplify, Disagree and Amplify, Pressure Flip, Ignore, Ridicule. However all these methods are designed for local shit tests where the goal is sex (or at least attraction). The issue with politicians is votes, which are not the same as attraction. So though this test would be fairly easy to pass in person, it gets more difficult on a broad scale. How can he use Ridicule, when that will alienate the polite-old-people segment of his audience? The lowest risk is probably ignore. But low risk does not always equal best.
To make concrete: If he said: "You go girl, in fact, I think you should never sleep at all. Party till you drop! Don't let anyone tell you about danger or health." Then people can be (variously) upset by the fact that he is making fun of her, and that he is encouraging bad behavior, and that he is going back on his previous statement, and that he is making light of a "serious" situation, etc.. But if it were an offhand comment in a bar, then it would probably work fine.
One that I think has limited downside for him and potential upside is the Pseudo-Gaslight. If he says something like "What does Cinderella have to do with personal safety?" He can feign ignorance, which makes their whole campaign look insular (and therefore ineffective), while not actively attacking her, or changing his "stance" on anything.
What does Lalit think? I'm imagining the old, upper-class Sri Lankan adjunct in our group-office saying something like, "Young lady, your behavior is preposterous. Now stop this bloody nonsense immediately and conduct yourself in the proper manner!"
Lalit thinx Hindu bitches be worthless whores, Muslim men be getting their dix wet with aforementioned worthless whores and Hindu males be limpdicked and jerking off to lesbian porn or inter-religious rape porn, probably the latter. Hindoos be freaking doomed. Damnit, we need a new religions more than the whites do!
Stay strong, bro. The Hindus have been in worse situations before and survived. Sooner enough the West is going to be finished, and we won't be able to keep dragging you into the grave with us.
CS Lewis would say, "Wait, reverse that!" (Because, you know, he thought that there are only two religions -- Christianity and Hinduism, so it's Hinduism that's dragging the West down ... but he was really thinking of Mystery-religions, Theosophy, Stoicism, not anything necessarily Indian ...)
Wait, why would he lump stoicism there with the others? Stoicism is awesome. I love the stoics. Seneca is among my hero. And what about Marcus Aurelius. C.S Lewis might have given us Cthulhu, but he has no idea what is he talking about if he thinks Christians have something over the Stoics. There is really no comparison here.
Stoicism for the philosophers, Mystery-religion (and devotional cults) for the masses within a high-"pagan" culture -- just as the Upanishads are for philosophers while Krishna- and Kali-worship is for the masses. I was attributing this unfolding of the thought to Lewis -- I don't remember whether he actually thought of the unfolding in this way. I'll see if I can find the quote -- I have a couple of his books here.
Okay, this is from book 2, chapter 1 of "Mere Christianity" (pp. 43-46) -- the "only two religions" quote isn't here, but the idea is presented: "The first big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not. On this point, Christianity lines up with the majority -- lines up with ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., against the modern Western European materialists. "Now I go on to the next big division. People who all believe in God can be divided according to the sort of God they believe in. There are two very different ideas on this subject. One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil. ... The other and opposite idea is that God is quite definitely 'good' or 'righteous,' a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way or another. The first of these views -- the one that thinks God beyond good and evil -- is called Pantheism. It was held by the great Prussian philosopher Hegel and, as far as I can understand them, by the Hindus. The other view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians. "...Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, 'If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.' The Christian replies, 'Don't talk damned nonsense.' For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world .... But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again." A note of my own: Schopenhauer thinks that everything that's deep and wise in Christianity is akin to the monism of the Upanishads (he despises the "Jewish" side of Christianity that Lewis emphasizes), and that morality is to be explained as the recognition that we are all one.
The Hindu scholars for their part believe that everything that is deep and wise in Christianity comes from ancient Greco Roman thought. Rajiv Malhotra has done some work on this.
In, General the Hindus still maintain some modicum of personal responsibility. So they don't claim the west is dragging them down. Besides a look at their own cultural history shows that Hinduism and Buddhism have had plenty of progressive signaling spirals of their own in the past. Sita Ram Goel talks about huge punishments being handed out for killing a louse in the 7th century. Some others write about cross dressing being all the rage on the eve of the Islamic invasions. In recent times, we had Gandhi. Savarkar writes about the extent of holiness spiralling that was going on in his "the Gandhian confusion." Bitches be hard to control, bro. Being a rabid Islamiphobe, I hate to admit it, but Sharia Law makes sense. Maybe Islam be not all bad. If only we could get rid of the Arab imperialism part.
I think that men need to offer a good example of social structure to women, by maintaining male aristocracies and priesthoods to which "ordinary" men defer -- and laborers/peasants should defer to a gentlemanly class as well. (Of course, this would require that higher classes of men behave, in general, in a responsible way, performing the duties of their station.). Only then would female deference to men in general within the overall scheme of things make sense to women. It has to make sense to them; it can't just be brutally imposed on them. If we believe in social order, we have to demonstrate that belief by ordering ourselves.
Preaching to the choir brother. But how do we get there from here?
There's always Bihar.
Ouch!
I would hazard a guess that you don't get out very much.
I would hazard a guess that you take the written word (and perhaps the spoken one as well) too literally.
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
Spandrell, here I try answering the question: "What specific policies do nationalists want?" I think the right isn't clear enough on specific policies we should be pursuing... https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/what-specific-policies-do-nationalists-want/
Dude I understand the need to advertise your blog. And your blog is pretty good as far as I can see. But please try to be more creative and remain on the topic of my post. This comment of yours belongs on the Orban post, not here.
Understood, I'll remain on topic. My apologies.
I’ve got an answer to your question: None. Who gives a shit? Nobody cares about policy. Policy is politics. Politics is democracy. You would know this if you had read Moldbug. “Say the word democracy. Notice how good it sounds. Everything democratic is good. A democratic meeting, a democratic policy, a democratic giraffe… if the adjective fits the noun at all, anything you paint with it comes out shiny and bright. “Now say the word politics. Notice how bad it sounds. This person is a politician. She’s being so political. These dangerous proposals would politicize US foreign policy. Every use of the word is negative. Everything you paint with it comes out sordid and mean. “But… what is democracy without politics? Is there any such thing? If there is, doesn’t it sound like something North Korea would come up with? Our higher form of democracy has transcended mere politics. Uh huh. Sure. I know where you’re going with that. “As objective realities — structures of governance — aren’t democracy and politics in fact… synonyms? But if they’re the same word, how can they have opposite connotations? How can it be that everyone knows, obviously, of course, democracy is a good thing, but politics is a bad thing?” http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2016/04/coda.htmlhttp://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/democracy-as-adaptive-fiction.htmlhttp://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/03/true-election-practical-option-for-real.html But, then, with your name you pay tribute to the “nation”, a word most famously used by Martin Luther, and the “nation-state”, the product of his revolution. P.S. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams
I disagree with your notion that politics is democracy. You think there is no politics in the Chinese politiboro, or North Korea, or Iran? Come on. Politics is inherent in human nature. I also disagree with your notion that no one cares about policy. With respect to Moldbug, I've read all of his works and while he does a brilliant job on describing the problems inherent in democracy, his solution - turning government into a corporation with all guns being crypto-locked - doesn't seem realistic. I've been meaning to do a post on "Why Nationalism?" to answer the question you raised. Nationalism, as you point out, was a leftist invention to rip power away from kings. So why not be a monarchist, or why not accept the latest leftist invention of one world government? I hope to get to your question soon.
"No, these girls are correct, they are not ones to marry princes and live happily ever after."
This. Ain't No Cinderella sounds like something a whore would say.
The only way to win is not to play.
Spandrell, would you kindly rescue from spam my message to nationalistperspective? Thanks.
Bhatti's comments seem pretty noncontroversial and common sense. Seems like this fake "controversy" was conjured up by the opposition party to score some political points. There are two potentially right ways and one wrong way to handle this situation. The wrong way is to apologize -- never apologize, it shows weakness and blood in the water for liberal sharks to pounce, and it would hurt Bhatti's base of support. The right ways to handle it is either (1) be silent and wait for the media outrage storm to pass (and it will, quickly -- you remember that stupid "Nasty Women" campaign? Yeah, I barely do as well. Libs have no attention span); or (2) double down on your statements. The correct approach depends on the politician's personality, financial situation (will doubling down affect his ability to find future employment?), and political security (did the politician making the statements have a firm control over his district? Did his base approve of the comments? Was he a first term or multiterm politician?).
Slut shaming ought to do it.
Ducking stools. Sure, it'll piss some people off at the start, but it's easy enough to buy votes. By which I don't mean 'soft-influence people to vote for you,' but rather, 'pay the dalits 5000 rupees each at the polls'.
Hi Spandrell The politician fucked it up. When you tell your child in a restaurant "I think you should not eat spaghetti with your fingers" it is obviously not about the child, it is about you signalling to the other patrons that you are a civilized guy who does not really approve of this. But if you actually want it to stop you say it in a firmer tone and promise punishment. Every normal child gets the weakness and hypocrisy of the first statement and starts throwing spaghetti at you. Similarly, some guy emitting and indignant personal opinion to women that does not even sound like an order and there is no punishment promised? That is weak as fuck and they know it, so this is not even a shit test that tests for weakness, it is merely mocking already obvious weakness. So at this point you don't pass the test, there is no test, he already failed that. The base minimum to do it in a way that does not look weak as fuck is saying "I am considering proposing a curfew for women enforced by a fine" in the first place. The tests will come, but they can be passed by actually doing so. As a general rule, don't suggest what women should do if you don't have at least some vague hint of an enforcement in the same context. Don't tell them to stop being slutty and stop teasing men unless you are willing to put a public indecency law on the books. Don't even talk about how sluttiness causes sexual assault, it is an obviously weak thing to do, strong men both forbid women from being slutty and are able to physically protect them from sexual assaulters, saying it is the choice is for women to reduce sexual assault by dressing modestly is already weak as fuck. Victim blaming is code for being weak. Strong men don't passively blame women for provoking sexual assault, they first kick the shit out of the assaulters then they spank the women for dressing slutty.
It's a good point. Bhatti is being equalitarian. Correct response is more, "Who bitch this is?" Her guardian has failed; he deserves the sanction.