politics

Musings On The Lonely Men Who Hate Each Other

by

The “Male Loneliness Epidemic” is something I see discussed a lot. Men feel lonely and isolated. Men fall under the spell of grifters. Men don’t find what they need and get bitter and angry. Being a pretty generic guy, I take interest in this for many reasons, including the fact a lot of (white) guys voted for Donald Trump who, as of this post, is sort of ruining everything.

Having lived many, many decades I get the concern about male loneliness. I also however was raised with the idea that you can find and make friends. I suspect some of this is really that I hit a sweet spot of how I was raised, role models, connective nerd culture, and region. I grew up thinking about making friends and connecting, and that it’s my job to do it. I guess some people missed that.

Beyond my very broad experiences, I’m not sure I can comment on the fine details of this supposed epidemic, if it is an epidemic (I don’t think so), and so on. I think what is obvious is there’s a grifty, fascistic part of Online Male Culture that uses this sense of disconnection to give vulnerable men a pathological and unsustainable role model, what one person on Tumblr called wittily the Buff Scammer.

The Buff Scammer is a sort of capitalistic/fascistic/comic book ideal of a guy as a jacked hustler always making scores and gains. You don’t actually enjoy yourself, you just have to keep up the gains and the money to show off . . . to other men. Even relations with women are ways to show off to men, meaning that you enter into the bizarrely homoerotic sphere of men thinking of men in their wooing of women. These men don’t have friends or lovers, just targets of various kinds.

What is funny is that, with my (ever-advancing age) and interest in history is I’m used to seeing far different ideals of male role models that are not the Buff Scammer.. A lot of them involved an idea of citizenship in many ways, even if there were other pathologies. The idea of a man was an idea of being engaged and part of things (even if there was plenty of toxic masculinity otherwise). It’s weird to see that in, say, 2500 year old writings, but also remember it in my youth and feel like it’s sort of been pushed aside in my lifetime.

Citizenship gives one some grounding, some sense of place – and you feel less lonely. You’re playing or seeking to play a role. Maybe it’s just me getting old, but I honestly see that completely lacking in large parts of culture, including some of the male grift-o-sphere. I meet plenty of engaged citizens who are happy, but there are zones where the idea of citizenship seems long gone.

Citizenship as an ideal leads you to not be alone and to seek connection. You have an ideal of belonging. The Buff Scammer and his ilk have none of that. That has to not just be lonely, but it resists a traditional gateway for not being lonely – the idea of being an active citizen. I mean you may not like everyone but you’re part of something.

This makes me think of the events of the first few months of the Trump administration. Trump destroyed alliances and trade deals built over decades – indeed over a century. He isolated the country in a temper tantrum, trying to look tough. He was, in short, a Buff Scammer (well, not that Buff) who has no concept of friends, of citizenship.

And then I think of the lonely men who voted for him. They have no concept of friends either. No concept of citizenship. No concept of belonging.

It’s just lonely people in a temper tantrum, disconnected, isolated, and running things, leaving them even more alone. Citizenship may be a solution, but people will have to learn to be active about it. Certainly they just found some grifter is going to make them more lonely.

-Xenofact

The Insecurity of Politics and Religion

by

As I write this America is awash in discussions of politics and religion. It is my sincere hope that when you read this you know I mean “in the past,” if you get my drift. It’s certainly not being written when it’s the past if you get my additional drift.

There’s an insecurity about religion in politics, at least in America. You can feel it as preaching politicians try to convince you they’re somehow divinely guided. You hear it in their voices and see it in their actions – a mix of unsure and too sure. Insecure confidence, where you wonder which side of the state came first.

So as I am prone to think about such things, I’ve begun to speculate as to why some of these religionists who supposedly have great faith are so insecure. Also the bastards keep wanting to tell me and mine what to do with our lives.

First,think that’s because when you mix religion and politics, you end up having to deal with politics. You have to deal with power blocks and publicity, bureaucracy and laws that are there no matter what you believe or want to believe. Or say you believe. Religion has to deal with politics (even if, say, religion predated politics) as soon as it gets involved.

It’s talk Divine Truth when you’re really thinking in voting blocks and power blocks. The very sphere you want to move your religion to – and inflict your religion with – challenges it.

Politics also has to deal with reality, no matter how often it avoids it. Politics, as many of us are aware, is already awash in insecurity. People have to explain why they should be elected, or stay in power, or be listened to. When challenged they may have to explain themselves – or crack down which means people just lie to them out of self-preservation. Either way if you’re not facing reality, someone is lying.

Bring religion into politics and religion also has to collide with reality – even if some religious folk are real good at dodging that reality. This all means that when you bring your religion into politics, it’s being challenged constantly, and a lot of religious folks don’t deal well with that. A lot of politicians aren’t so hot at it either, so you get a kind of double-punch of self doubt and insecurity.

I think those trying to mix religion and politics in America are facing constant challenges, and often respond with made up confidence and bravado. Confidence of course is easily challenged, leading, of course, to more insecurity. It’s no surprise you end up with plenty of supposedly spiritual people acting like dictators – even if they didn’t start that way.

(Though for my money, most of them do start that way, they just get worse.)

Now these thoughts apply to current America and it’s revelatory/monotheistic dominant religion and our media landscape. In an age of television preachers, cable TV, and social media everything is in our faces constantly. You can select your own reality, but also have it challenged if you step outside of your media bubble. If you’ve ever seen some host of, say, an extremely political news show try to desperately spin reality you know what I mean.

I suppose at some point it’d be interesting to explore religion and politics in areas non-Christian (and indeed non-Abrahamic) religions. Though obviously you know where my concerns lie . . .

The Separation of Religion and Being An A-Hole

by

Something I’ve seen said for a while is “if someone argues their religion should be public policy, there’s no reason to debate if they’re actually right about their religion if you’re not part of it.”  Why would you debate theology with someone whose theology you don’t share?  Saying “but your ideas really don’t live up to your religion” ignores the fact that their attempts to claim divine mandate don’t matter as you don’t believe as they do.

I’d like to discuss this for a bit as I believe there is a time to debate someone’s religion when they want to force it on you. It’s just, shall we say, more optional and personal.

So let us say someone argues that their religion should be the law of the land or the basis for laws, and you are not part of their religion.  You also realize their religious interpretation is, shall we say, theologically unsound to a critical degree.  Should you argue with them?

No.  Simply put, you’re not part of their religion so you have no reason to listen to them.  If they want to create public policy, they have to argue values that are more universal and inclusive.  If they can’t, that’s their own damn problem.

Even if you were part of their religion, there’s no reason for them to go force their religion on others.  You don’t have to be an a-hole like them, after all.

So, you can safely ignore these hopeful theocrats without debate.  If they wish to press the issue, then you have someone who, let us put not too fine a point on it, wants to use the power of the state to compel religious belief.  You can safely assume that under the right circumstances, they’d be ready to get very violent toward you and others and should be safe accordingly (or mock them when safe).

However, I would argue that there is a reason to argue theology with such people, albeit an optional one.  It’s a good way to make a point if you think it may help that person.

If one of these aspiring theocrats continues to annoy you and you decide to prove they don’t know their religion, do so.  Challenge them to justify their ideas, and feel free to pick them apart.  Then, after showing their lack of knowledge of their own faith, you can note something.

You have shown that not only are they theocrats, they don’t know what the hell they’re saying.  They not only are aspiring theocrats, but they have also proven you have no reason to trust them on anything.  If they can’t get their religion right, which is supposedly so important to them, how can you trust them on anything else?  Not only do they want to use the power of the state on you, but this person also clearly can’t be trusted on anything as they’re a hypocrite.

Yes, you’re probably being a bit of an a-hole yourself, but in a good way.  Maybe, just maybe you’ll get them to think.

But I don’t think you’re obligated.

– Xenofact