Memes, anime, the alt-right, and anonymizing the terrible

[Momogari]

So I just read this essay:

4chan: The Skeleton Key to the Rise of Trump
(AL can't handle the @ in the link so I'm giving you the google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=4chan%3 ... n+–+Medium)

It's a long essay, but it's an interesting read. While obviously skewed, I think there's a possibility it's accurate on some points. It's prompted me to look up a few papers on 4chan in the hopes that there was some peer-reviewed studies on its cultural core and explanations for its behaviors and involvement in some of the incidents that the essay above mentions, and from what I've read so far, I've changed my mind on some of its more key arguments. That is, I now disagree with it on major ideas.

First let me explain why this resonated with me.
I have been really fucking confused the last few years as to how half the anime meme pages on facebook have openly embraced severely racist, mysogynist, or alt-right tendencies, showed open support for nazis, etc. I've honestly wondered where on earth this came from and what the connection was between fascism and anime, or racism and anime, because it never made any sense to me. This is the first thing I've read that attempts to produce an explanation for this phenomenon.

Also like adolescent boys, 4chan users were deeply sensitive and guarded. They disguised their own sensitivity (namely, their fear that they would be, “forever alone”) by extreme insensitivity. The rules, like everything else, were always half in jest. Everything had to be a done with at least a twinkle of winking irony. This was an escape route, a way of never having to admit to your peers that you were in fact expressing something from your heart, in other words?—?that you were indeed vulnerable.

Certainly, there is an insult culture, and definitely part of it is self-defamatory in nature. But this claims that 4channers do this out of a genuine feeling of inadequacy. One of the things I would like to discuss is whether this is accurate.

I don't think it is on the whole. I could see that there would be an aspect of that, maybe, but I don't see it as the driving force. Rather, I see the driving force behind the insult culture as this:

The antagonistic trolling practices directed at newfaggotry on /b/ are highly variable, demonstrating misandry, racism, heterosexism, religious discrimination, ableism and mentalism, weightism, general lookism, and so on. This is in keeping with the long history of performative ‘insult dialectic’ that can be mapped through popular culture to the Afro-American practice of ‘the dozens’, which Dollard (1939: 8–10) argued was organised around gratification gained through the expression of forbidden themes (remarks about one’s family and mother in particular) and aggressive interactions that escalate as participants trade insults. In accordance with this insult dialectic, 4channers tailor abusive rhetoric to the revealed identity factors of the offending newfags in question, deterring self-oriented practices through personalized demoralization.

This is from "Tits or GTFO: The logics of misogyny on 4chan’s Random – /b/", by Vyshali Manivannan of Rutgers University

That is, I definitely see a large driving force behind offensive, exclusionary, racist, mysogynist, and adding to this, pedophilic memes, is simply the joy of being perverse. It feels like it's a type of counterculture where it's avant-garde to basically trash anything society holds sacred.
And people of course say well, it's all just joking around, but the more you see of it, you realize it's not really. It's so bad that it's becoming normalized, and one thing that the first essay gets right is that it actually does change culture. I mean, it was normal for men in ancient Greece to have homosexual relations with young boys. Did the fundamental nature of what a human being is change suddenly in the last 2000 years? Of course not--cultural norms influence personal values, attitudes, and behaviors, and so a community being openly racist is sure as hell going to create more racists even without the already-racists coming out of the wordwork into their newfound safe space. Same goes with normalizing pedophilia--sexual preference can be a learned behavior, especially with young people, so it's certainly not something you can just laugh off and pretend it's not a problem.


On misogyny specifically

The skinny on our current situation—that Nagle is too polite and scholarly to say—is that there are a lot of men nowadays who are servile and credulous but who desperately desire to be perceived as independent and enlightened. They want to be sexually successful but don’t want to bother with being interesting or charming or physically attractive. They want to take the ready-made answers they hear on YouTube, then regurgitate them on Facebook, and complain about how everyone else is herd-minded. They want to ridicule the cult of feeling while remaining sentimental about the forces of hierarchy and tradition. They want to convince themselves and others that it’s “edgy/countercultural/transgressive” to be loudmouths for the leisure class.

This is from a book review of a book called "Kill All the Normies". The review was written by Mark Dunbar, and the book is apparently written by a "Nagle". It's basically a more scholarly repeat of the same idea in the essay, that 4channers are frustrated that they're not desired by the opposite sex.

And that's something I'm actually completely unsure on. It sounds dismissive, but having had several sociology classes, I can't really dismiss it out of hand. After all, the dominant male culture does reinforce a culture of being 1) in control, 2) virile, 3) a provider, in the family context (and some papers tie frustrations into economics heavily as well, as does the first essay), and I feel like a lot of men do tend to have a strange unrealistic view of relationships that could, in my mind, create this extreme dissatisfaction with the opposite sex for perceived slights of not having sex with them. I mean you see it in plenty of other places other than the internet. So it's vague, but there's definitely a culture that can prevailingly control interactions, attitudes, and behaviors to such a degree that I'm not sure it would be strange for thousands of men to all agree that if she breathe she a thot. Either way, cultural beliefs about sex and relationships tend to control a lot of human social behavior.


And then coming full circle, there's the anime. That's what really ties in that first essay. I can't see any other reason for anime to be a big part of alt-right culture if not for the proposition that the hoards of disenchanted men being willfully ironic and offensive are simply often anime fans because the same people tend to live out escapist fantasies. The section on gamergate in the article is worth discussing in this regard.






I'm sorry this was somewhat rambling, but it's a really difficult thing to begin to make sense of in the first place.
I shall dump my notes and collected quotes from reading papers, should they be of interest

  Spoiler:  

Posing a stark contrast to the trust networks of social media, the incongruity between normatively constructed expectations and 4chan’s discursive reality encourages performative role-play in the form of anti-normative, egregious, and abusive dialogue. These practices serve as informal structures of socialisation
FCJ-158 Tits or GTFO: The logics of misogyny on 4chan’s Random – /b/

A-culture on 4chan is characterised by its dehistoricising velocity, elitism, self-documentation, self-mythologising, self-awareness, and constant ironising as a means of competitively displaying different knowledges and their permutations (Auerbach, 2012; Hutcheon, 1994: 93). Like Japanese otaku, or individuals stigmatised for their obsessive interest in stereotypically geeky pursuits, 4channers embrace their alienation from mainstream culture and take pride in their collective shame. As such, it is practically expected that 4chan retain the normative gender associations geek identity typically imposes on technological access, particularly given that otaku stereotypically distrust discussions of otaku subjects initiated by non-otaku, who are popularly presumed to be female (Eglash, 2002: 49; Azuma, 2001: 5).
FCJ-158 Tits or GTFO: The logics of misogyny on 4chan’s Random – /b/


The presumption of Western male heterosexual identity is invisibly imbricated into 4chan’s subculture, undermining its post-identity politics paradigm. 4chan is not universally accessible, as Internet access is limited in portions of the world and controversial content is often censored, contributing to 4chan’s largely Western demographic (Bernstein et al, 2011: 5). However, misogynistic trolling practices are less a reflection of this asymmetrical power structure than of the desire for subcultural preservation. It exists as a subset of bigoted discourse, including misandrist and racist rhetoric, all of which target users who violate anonymity, misinterpret irony, and attempt to normalise 4chan’s class habitus of established users.
FCJ-158 Tits or GTFO: The logics of misogyny on 4chan’s Random – /b/


This is an interesting gem:

  Spoiler:  

In the thread, a racist premise was used to encourage humorous contribution. This premise
reinforced oppressive ideologies, as was the case in Billig’s (2001) study. 4chan posters
operated in an environment where racial stereotypes were an understood and largely
unchallenged assumption.
78 FCJ-156
fibreculturejournal.org
FCJ-156 Hacking the Social: Internet Memes, Identity Antagonism, and the Logic of Lulz.


This unchallenged assumption represents a communicative blur inherent to the logic of
lulz. The line between playful (if antisocial) irony, satire, and parody and ‘earnest’ racism
is difficult to differentiate. Looking at the artifacts alone – and even the threads that
accompany them – it’s difficult to gauge intent. The logic of lulz was prevalent enough to
blanket a considerable amount of antagonistic discourse in these collectives. The posts
above could be the expressions of ‘genuine’ racists; they might also be downplayed as
‘just for the lulz’, a troll on ‘politically correct’ sensibilities. The difficulty in separating
‘ironic’ antagonism from ‘earnest’ antagonism is prevalent enough that it comes with a
name in these collectives: Poe’s Law.
According to the participatory media reference site, Know Your Meme (‘Poe’s Law’,
undated) Poe’s Law ‘is an internet axiom which states that it is difficult to distinguish
extremism from satire of extremism in online discussions unless the author clearly indicates
his/her intent’. It was named for a 2005 forum thread on Creationism where a poster
going by Poe declared that ‘without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor,
it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake
for the genuine article’. The term has become a way for participants to express confusion
or ambivalence to seemingly antagonistic content. Poe’s Law – and the ambiguity it
represents – indicates the difficulty in parsing out – within the logic of lulz – ‘ironic’ and
‘legitimate’ identity antagonism.
78 FCJ-156
fibreculturejournal.org
FCJ-156 Hacking the Social: Internet Memes, Identity Antagonism, and the Logic of Lulz.



Racial representations on 4chan and reddit had their differences, but operated under
similar logics. The racism on 4chan was more explicit, but reddit also perpetuated a white
centrality. Both worked to repress difference. A lack of multiple voices engaging – even in
conflict – meant one-sided public discourse. The logic of lulz was employed partially and
exclusively, and even with Poe’s Law casting doubt on the authenticity of the antagonism,
the discourse itself was antagonistic.
78 FCJ-156
fibreculturejournal.org
FCJ-156 Hacking the Social: Internet Memes, Identity Antagonism, and the Logic of Lulz.


Likewise, Kendall (2002) says that ‘since the 1980s, the previously liminal masculine
identity of the nerd has been rehabilitated and partly incorporated into hegemonic
masculinity’ (81). Kendall (2002) analyses how participants on the BlueSky MUD joke about
their chances with women. She finds that ‘the joke is intended to be on the participants
themselves, regarding their nonhegemonic masculinity, but women are the ultimate butts of
the joke’ (87). Women are still detached objects, even if they’re unattainable ones. Even in
these jokes – meant to be commentary on atypical masculinity – inequality is discursively
reproduced.
FCJ-156 Hacking the Social: Internet Memes, Identity Antagonism, and the Logic of Lulz.


Engaging in these collectives often means performing masculinity,
thus embedding the ideologies further.
FCJ-156 Hacking the Social: Internet Memes, Identity Antagonism, and the Logic of Lulz.

[Moulders]

Going to be quick so I haven't had time to properly think things through as I've been sick with flu:

It's a long essay, but it's an interesting read. While obviously skewed, I think there's a possibility it's accurate on some points. It's prompted me to look up a few papers on 4chan in the hopes that there was some peer-reviewed studies on its cultural core and explanations for its behaviors and involvement in some of the incidents that the essay above mentions, and from what I've read so far, I've changed my mind on some of its more key arguments. That is, I now disagree with it on major ideas.

I'm pleased that you stated you believed it to be skewed. After reading it, it was absolutely clear that it came with preconceived notions, that the author already had most things organised into absolutes. Whilst, as you point out, not everything is incorrect in what has been written there is a definite tone to the article that indicates colours had been firmly fixed to a mast. As well as that, the article spins a web of half truths and obfuscates by omitting points of data. Whilst written in a way which makes it difficult to refute comprehensively by evidence by meandering thinking and vagaries - this works also to make it impossible to prove to be accurate. However what makes this type of article dangerous is that it can easily be picked up by policy makers for the purpose of dictating where something goes, since it becomes the next best thing to proof. If you can't prove it, blag it, make it seem reasonable and then that becomes canonical.

I absolutely despise that way of acting. It's why I don't read opinion pieces.

I have been really fucking confused the last few years as to how half the anime meme pages on facebook have openly embraced severely racist, mysogynist, or alt-right tendencies, showed open support for nazis, etc. I've honestly wondered where on earth this came from and what the connection was between fascism and anime, or racism and anime, because it never made any sense to me. This is the first thing I've read that attempts to produce an explanation for this phenomenon.

I'm sure you know why the jokes exist. As to why they are so prevelant? First I need to know are the actually that prevelant? What are the metrics? How many anime meme pages are there and what number out of this group openly accept these clearly immoral jokes. What you would also have to do is establish whether or not they are openly embraced or simply 'begrudgingly accepted' generally as a sign of the cultural times. It is perfectly possible for one of these groups to allow some manner of edgy humour but do so with a touch of discretion, establishingly a shaky and often murky line and not allowing members to cross it.

That is, I definitely see a large driving force behind offensive, exclusionary, racist, mysogynist, and adding to this, pedophilic memes, is simply the joy of being perverse. It feels like it's a type of counterculture where it's avant-garde to basically trash anything society holds sacred.

I agree with you there. Although I wouldn't describe it as avant-garde because I'm not that pretentious.

And people of course say well, it's all just joking around, but the more you see of it, you realize it's not really.

But it is. Regardless of whether or not it has an adverse effect on people exposed to the jovial discussions or community banter is irrelevant in determining the intentions of the original. Even if that were to lead to the rise of any serious movement, the initial intentions are not determined from the results.

It's so bad that it's becoming normalized, and one thing that the first essay gets right is that it actually does change culture..... [SNIP]cultural norms influence personal values, attitudes, and behaviors...

So you'd be an advocate for change based on principles found on what is essentially a slippery slope?

Years ago we used to always have the homosexual debate in forums and no doubt at some point someone would bring up some variant on being so open about it would eventually lead to other types of alternative sexual leanings to slowly become accepted. This was so often dismissed and laughed at. How strange it is that it comes around again for a different topic now that the gayness is generally acceptable most places in the western world. (unless you forgot to include 'homophobic' in the list of forbidden humour topics.)

and so a community being openly racist is sure as hell going to create more racists even without the already-racists coming out of the wordwork into their newfound safe space. Same goes with normalizing pedophilia--sexual preference can be a learned behavior, especially with young people, so it's certainly not something you can just laugh off and pretend it's not a problem.

What do you mean by racist here? That they are racist or that they make racist jokes? Since a racist joke doesn't necessarily make the user a racist. What is this new safe-space, facebook internet meme werehouses? The new bierhaus is a facebook group dedicated to swapping pictures of catgirls doing the nazi salute? Don't worry the meaning of your statement was not lost on me just because of how I put forward a front of mockery towards it.

It is something that can certainly be laughed off just like the gay to pedophile link was laughed off as being tenuous at best.

And then coming full circle, there's the anime. That's what really ties in that first essay. I can't see any other reason for anime to be a big part of alt-right culture if not for the proposition that the hoards of disenchanted men being willfully ironic and offensive are simply often anime fans because the same people tend to live out escapist fantasies. The section on gamergate in the article is worth discussing in this regard.

It's hard to pick apart the useful information here because there is a massive mix up in thinking. The use of the term 'alt-right' is shrouded in a mire of confusion over its usage that it seems to be used interchangably with other terms, most notably fasicst and nazi. There are parallels but the main difference between them are as follows:

Alt-right advocate for a nationalist state based on skin colour.
Fascists advocate for a nationalist state based on citizenship.

The main difference here being that alt-righters have a firm and impassible barrier to entry for the politics wheras fascist regimes can be entered into by all people so long as they become citizens of the state. Whether or not you think its fair that one should have to give up a form of cultural identity is irrelevant (as it is not always a necessity).

Due to this it is difficult to actually pinpoint which part of the anime memes are actually alt-right. Is a catgirl in a MAGA hat classified as an alt-right meme? Well if it is, then it is mistakenly labled so since MAGA is not alt-right. It may be used by the alt-right but it doesn't exist as a result of the movement or their specific principles. Is a toilet used by a member of the alt-right therefore an alt-right toilet? Her house? Her car? Is a pen that is used to write alt-right slogans on banners an alt-right pen? The posters would be, but the tools not. However what if the slogans were not alt-right but drawn with an alt-right pen and displayed at an alt-right rally? Do the slogans become alt-right. If that icon they used next was Momogari, would you therefore be alt-right?

It's absurd yes, but I could find no better way to counter absurd thinking without delving into absurdities myself.

I read the gamergate part of the article too. Speaking as someone who only ever observed it happening from the sidelines the interpretation put forth in the corresponding article is laughable. It was just smearing. It was the article equivelent of pointing at something and saying 'if you touch that, that means ur gaye'.

[Momogari]

Firstly, I didn't see any quantitative data. I did see good case studies, but they were of tangential focus.

And people of course say well, it's all just joking around, but the more you see of it, you realize it's not really.

But it is. Regardless of whether or not it has an adverse effect on people exposed to the jovial discussions or community banter is irrelevant in determining the intentions of the original. Even if that were to lead to the rise of any serious movement, the initial intentions are not determined from the results.

I suppose what I meant is that,
what I think is happening is this:

1. People who don't believe terrible shit post terrible shit as a joke.
2. People who actually believe terrible shit post terrible shit couched as a joke
3. Terrible shit becomes normalized enough for the underlying culture to change, where society itself ends up drifting in terrible directions as people (not just kids, but especially kids) are impressioned by acceptance and even positive reinforcement of terrible shit

And I do think terrible directions exist, either objectively or as close enough to objectively as doesn't matter.

I think the slippery slope you're talking about is that in stating outright what is right and wrong, we'd be mob-legislating ethics and ultimately suppressing free thought.
And that goes back to the above. I think there should be clear boundaries. There is no possible world where it would be ok to take a kid off the street and fuck them.


I'll come back to this later.

[Moulders]

1. People who don't believe terrible shit post terrible shit as a joke.

Sometimes yes.

2. People who actually believe terrible shit post terrible shit couched as a joke

Again sometimes. It's still funny.

3. Terrible shit becomes normalized enough for the underlying culture to change, where society itself ends up drifting in terrible directions as people (not just kids, but especially kids) are impressioned by acceptance and even positive reinforcement of terrible shit

If that becomes the norm then let it be. It would make for some entertaining newsbeats.

I think there should be clear boundaries.

Defined by whom? You? Me? The sensibilities of society that were allowed to grow to the point where you decided that enough was enough and enforced draconian policies to stem evolution of ethics?

[Momogari]

Defined by whom? You? Me? The sensibilities of society that were allowed to grow to the point where you decided that enough was enough and enforced draconian policies to stem evolution of ethics?

I would, at least, find it morally reprehensible for anyone to claim that any possible outcome for the "evolution of ethics" would be acceptable merely by the virtue of its acceptance. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. There is a very good reason why we have things that society finds universally right and wrong; there is such a thing as moral philosophy. For instance, our ethics include not murdering people because of our very concept of personhood and what it means to be a free rational agent. And that's been the case for a long time, it's simply that our definition of person has changed to suit our purposes. Europeans used to keep Africans in zoos because it was assumed they weren't people. But the underlying moral philosophy has been the same, and I think it has objective truth, at the very least, for human civilization. Superorganisms and hive minds I might accept a different moral framework, but not persons, not people. I frankly find it abhorrent for anyone to completely eschew the foundations of moral philosophy on a half-assed idea that ethics will always be "right" just because culture votes on it. Ethics is not a simple thing that can just be dismissed like that, and I don't want to live in a world where such dismissal goes unchallenged.



I don't claim to be an expert in philosophy, but I have a great deal of respect for it and I think our culture clearly needs more respect for it than it gets.

[Moulders]

There is a very good reason why we have things that society finds universally right and wrong; there is such a thing as moral philosophy. For instance, our ethics include not murdering people because of our very concept of personhood and what it means to be a free rational agent. And that's been the case for a long time, it's simply that our definition of person has changed to suit our purposes.

So then you're in agreement? That in this case personhood has changed to encompass more than what it did before and now gives protection under law to those to which it was previously acceptable to do as we will. Our ethics include the generally held belief that murdering people is wrong and we hold that to be a universal truth yet we still sanction it, either by personal will or by law, in many cases. We simply just define at which point we take the personhood away from the victim. For some people it is moral to do this to murderers. For other rapists. For me and others.... heretics. The limits of personhood are liquid and can be changed to suit needs and cultures. For some this is defined by class, some by colour, others by age - for it should certainly be immoral to kill any person at any age including that which is in development right? Surely for the moral absolutist it would be repugnant to take the life of something in the stages of growth or is the absolutism of these objective truths not extended to what some people do not think of as persons?

I frankly find it abhorrent for anyone to completely eschew the foundations of moral philosophy on a half-assed idea that ethics will always be "right" just because culture votes on it. Ethics is not a simple thing that can just be dismissed like that, and I don't want to live in a world where such dismissal goes unchallenged.

Oh it'd never go unchallenged and neither should it. Although I wonder if you'd be equally accepting to the idea of challenging ideas of ethics. It seems from what I can perceive from the entire point of the thread that you don't like the idea of challenging notions of personhood based on racial boundries. (Although mixed up as it is in a mire of confusion over labeling of individuals and movements) It is not to say that I would deny the rights of personhood from groups but this is a luxury I grant to all... including criminals and the unborn child - groups which it is seen as ethical (currently) to deny personhood.

I don't claim to be an expert in philosophy, but I have a great deal of respect for it and I think our culture clearly needs more respect for it than it gets.

When I hear people talk of culture I reach for my revolver.

[mmertios]

Hello! I don’t have many ideas. I have never used a forum discussion. If I need help writing an essay, I always try to find it on the Internet. If I am satisfied with the result, then I can move on to the next text. Last time, when I needed help on a task on literature, I ordered a small essay on the Internet, and after ordering 2-3 times, I found that they did not do their job well enough. I am not literate, but even I noticed errors. Who has had experience with this https://paperap.com/conclusion-generator/ essay writing service?

[TrashM]

.

[unoduetre]

Oh, that's interesting. I gonna read it when I have time, probably later today.

[unoduetre]

I've started reading it. I will post my comments here before reading anything from this thread (so this thread doesn't influence my first impression of it) and post my answers to other posts in this thread in my later post.

So here are my first impressions:

---

Some interesting references.

This is a good quote:

The result was that 4chan had a culture as complex as any other society of millions of people, anonymous or no. There were things it loved, things it hated, ways of being and acting that met with approval and disapproval in the group.

Most cultures/subcultures have their value system. A bad thing about many subcultures is that they either pretend to have a different value system from the mainstream one, but actually copy it (e.g. sexism among hippies), or do everything in the opposite way to the mainstream (this often leads to contradictions). The second option is usually better imho, at least in the beginning, until the subculture better understands its values, but it's difficult to sustain.

This was an escape route, a way of never having to admit to your peers that you were in fact expressing something from your heart, in other words — that you were indeed vulnerable. No matter what a user did or said, he could always say it was “for the lulz” (lols).

I've met such people on the internet. It's not possible to say anything or to have a discussion because everything is a joke. The usual "keep calm" mantra.

4chan was libertarian.

My guess about it is that most users were Americans. The real left side of the political spectrum didn't exist in the American mind until recently. (And it still doesn't exist politically.) I wonder, if they could've been e.g. Stalinists, if they weren't Americans. They probably went to the only extreme they knew, the right wing one. Because they weren't really aware of the left wing extreme.

I think nowadays (or in a 10 years maybe) we could have both a right-wing (probably alt-right or libertarian) and a left-wing (SJW-like and maybe marxist) 4chans.

Gamergaters believed that “SJWs” (Social Justice Warriors) were adding unwanted elements into their video games, namely things which promoted gender equality.

And they were mostly wrong THEN. But have you noticed what has happened nowadays? Nowadays we have real SJWs who are not just in the 4chan members imagination. I wonder what happened. Was it a reaction against what happened with 4channers (and other, similar people)? Was it just the fact that the name began to match a certain group of people?

Btw. Gamergate was awful. It's one of the examples of actual sexism. Regardless of what Zoë Quinn did, it wasn't an excuse for what happened afterwards.

their failure and powerlessness literally embodied (to them) by women.

And the incels, MRA etc. were born…

In other words, if we are to understand Trump supporters, we can view them at the core as losers

And this is true. But the author uses a conservative/liberal axiom: "When you lose it's always your fault, it's always because you haven't tried enough."

But this axiom is not always true. Sometimes people lose not because they haven't tried enough, but because the rules of the game are constructed in a way that prevents people from winning.

If one wants to really analyse the situation, one should ask the question: "WHY those people were losers? Was it because they didn't try enough or was it because the "rules of the game" prevented them from being the winners." And it's not an excuse, but it's a real question that needs to be answered.

I am not sure what the answer is, my guts tell me they were losers because they didn't try enough, but I might be wrong. I don't know. But the author doesn't know either. He just assumes…

For these young men, voting Trump is not a solution, but a new spiteful prank.

Maybe because there is no political party REALLY representing their interests. Instead both of the parties have the same axiom: "When you lose it's always your fault, it's always because you haven't tried enough."

Even to us leftists

You meant liberals, don't you? An actual leftist would understand this basic thing.

Trump’s ventures of course, represent this fantasy: this hope that the working man, against the odds dictated by his knowledge, experience, or hard work will one day strike it rich

Maybe he wanted to say: "Ha ha, those stupid working people, how stupid they are, how dirty they are, those f… losers…"

"We leftists" What a joke.

The left does more than simply declare their opposing viewpoint wrong, the radical idea of sex/gender-as-illusion denies their viewpoint an existence.

Oh, so sex is an illusion? And gender as well? Of course, because the only real thing is your choice. There are no social classes, there are no sex classes. The system gives everyone the same chances to win. It all depends on your choices. People getting their money from capital and people getting their money from selling their work are in the same situation. Patriarchy doesn't exist. Because sex is just an illusion. Females are as strong physically as males. It's just an illusion they aren't. It's an illusion that almost all rapists are male.

"We leftists" This joke is not funny anymore.

[unoduetre]

OK, I will now answer the posts.

[mention=6444]Momogari[/mention]

I think one of the reasons for sexism, racism etc. is that people who feel they're low in the social ladder try to find other people who they perceive are even lower. It's the same old: "An abused child might easily become an abuser." Their problem is they do not understand the source of their abuse. So they imagine it's all because of women etc. It reminds me of Germans who imagined all of their problems were because of Jews. It's the same style of thinking.

It's magic of words. When they say slurs against these groups who they perceive as lower than them, they feel empowered. This might be the only way for them to feel empowered. The society they live in or their own choices (see my post above) might prevent them from having any other way to feel empowered. So they do this as a substitute.

[unoduetre]

And then coming full circle, there's the anime. That's what really ties in that first essay. I can't see any other reason for anime to be a big part of alt-right culture if not for the proposition that the hoards of disenchanted men being willfully ironic and offensive are simply often anime fans because the same people tend to live out escapist fantasies. The section on gamergate in the article is worth discussing in this regard.

@Momogari

As far as anime is concerned, the thing is that there are some genres of it which show female characters who are some sort of a fairy-like, mythical creatures. They're shown as totally different from male characters. E.g. they're always sweat and innocent. Especially young schoolgirls in slice of life shows. These characters do not represent real women. Sometimes they're "ideal" women (e.g. in harem anime) ("ideal" in a certain type of a male mind who is soaked in a sexist culture). Sometimes they represent an ideal of innocence (slice of life anime). So it's easy to represent them as "other" and "different" from men. They are easily dehumanised. And there is hentai. You know how female characters in hentai are presented. So after seeing all of these dehumanised women and having no contact with real women, it's easy for them to imagine that all females are either sweet, gentle, slice-of-life like creatures or whores who have no self-respect.

In their mind, if one fails to fulfill the "sweet, gentle" expectations (almost no real women fulfill these), she MUST be a whore.

I think this is the connection to anime you're looking for.

It's called Madonna-whore complex or virgin/whore dichotomy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E ... re_complex

From: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 4319843298

The madonna-whore dichotomy denotes polarized perceptions of women as either good and chaste or as bad and promiscuous. In the present research, we examined the correlates of madonna-whore dichotomy among samples of heterosexual Israeli, U.S., and German women and heterosexual U.S. and German men. Demonstrating cross-cultural generalizability, madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement correlated with endorsement of patriarchy-supporting ideologies across samples. U.S. (but not German) men’s madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement negatively correlated with their sexual satisfaction in romantic relationships, which in turn predicted lower general relationship satisfaction. Among women, madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement did not correlate with sexual or general relationship satisfaction. These findings (a) support the feminist perspective on the madonna-whore dichotomy, which points to the role of the stereotype in policing women and limiting their sexual freedom; and (b) provide evidence that madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement can have personal costs for men. Increasing awareness to the motivations underlying the madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement and its costs can be beneficial at the social and personal levels for women and men, by providing knowledge that may help in developing focused interventions to change existing perceptions and scripts about sexuality, and perhaps foster more satisfying heterosexual relationships.

From: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-0895-7

The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy (MWD) denotes polarized perceptions of women in general as either “good,” chaste, and pure Madonnas or as “bad,” promiscuous, and seductive whores. Whereas prior theories focused on unresolved sexual complexes or evolved psychological tendencies, feminist theory suggests the MWD stems from a desire to reinforce patriarchy. Surveying 108 heterosexual Israeli men revealed a positive association between MWD endorsement and patriarchy-enhancing ideology as assessed by Social Dominance Orientation (preference for hierarchical social structures), Gender-Specific System Justification (desire to maintain the existing gender system), and sexist attitudes (Benevolent and Hostile Sexism, Sexual Objectification of Women, and Sexual Double Standards). In addition, MWD endorsement negatively predicted men’s romantic relationship satisfaction. These findings support the feminist notion that patriarchal arrangements have negative implications for the well-being of men as well as women. Specifically, the MWD not only links to attitudes that restrict women’s autonomy, but also impairs men’s most intimate relationships with women. Increased awareness of motives underlying the MWD and its psychological costs can help practice professionals (e.g., couple therapists), as well as the general public, to foster more satisfying heterosexual relationships.

(Both from overlapping authors.)

[Momogari]

Oh, this thread got necro'd.
On the women anime connection:
Yeah maybe.


On the previous post of abused abusers compensating:
I'm wary of the classical explanation, but maybe this is one of those that's an established effect. I think it would fit. Though the self-deprecation is an odd phenomenon in conjunction.

[unoduetre]

@Momogari

Well, I don't know. It might be different for different people. These are just some of my thoughts/guesses.

One might ask a question: "What are the most popular anime genres among these people?"

If the answer were "hentai and slice of life", it would be an argument supporting my point (but not a proof of course).

Do you know which genres are the most popular among them?

[unoduetre]

Well, another thing is probably pleasure from breaking social taboos.