Has the Overton window divided to form distinct Left and Right factions?
Readership: Sociocultural Anthropology enthusiasts; Those following Boxer’s arguments against Dalrock; Those involved with the American Heritage Girls organization;
“Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” ~ Proverbs 27:17 KJV
* Section titles taken from the song, Stuck in the middle with you, by Stealer’s Wheel (feat. Gerry Rafferty).
Clowns to the Left of Me*
It’s not often that we see a senator berating a tech giant for not being progressive enough.
PA Pundits (feat. Alexander Hall): Senator Calls To Jail Zuckerberg If Facebook Doesn’t Censor More (2019 September 5)
“Wyden specifically hammered Big Tech, though not for the reasons conservatives would. “Your companies have done practically everything wrong since the 2016 election”, he wrote. He later added, “If you don’t get serious on moderation, you’re going to have a lot of people coming after you. And they’re going to be in a very strong position.”
In other words, Suckerberg’s forbearance of free speech advocates is slowing down progressiveness!
“[Sen. Wyden] has called for better moderation, particularly against “all the hatemongers”, which, to free speech advocates, is a step down the slippery slope to censorship. On the other hand, Wyden mentioned that when “Barack Obama said you had to give up 10 percent of your liberty to have security,” he “wanted to throw a rock at my television set.””
They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
“In a statement posted on his government website, Wyden said “tech companies certainly need to continue to be far more vigorous about identifying, fingerprinting and blocking content and individuals who incite hate and violence.” Big Tech, he said, should be doing far more to “clean up their platforms” on their own.””
Wyden is acting as the Deep State’s goad to get Big Tech giants like Facebook (FB) (and all of their numbskull users) further down the road towards Big Brother socialism. But Zuck is caught in a conundrum.
“[Facebook’s] business model was built on clicks and virality, which led them to tune their algorithms in ways that actively encouraged conspiracy theories, personal abuse, and other content that was most likely to generate user interaction. This was the opposite of the public broadcasting ideal, which (as defined, for example, by the Council of Europe) privileged material deemed in the broad public interest. User attention is the most precious commodity on the internet, and platform algorithms increasingly determined what users were likely to see or hear.”
Zuck can’t pyle on any more censorship as long as (1) he’s using clicks and data to generate income, and (2) a significant segment of his user base is dead set against both censorship and selling user data. He has to bide his time and wait until a larger piece of the population is convinced that tighter censorship is necessary. Only then can he tighten up his algorithms without a considerable kickback. Meanwhile, the public’s discontent with FB has been rising. Recently, Zuck was called to the congressional carpet for selling user data.
Jokers to the Right*
Meanwhile, over on the other extreme of the political spectrum, Dalrock is taking issue with various manifestations of Feminism within the Church and society, and Boxer’s clan is pointing out how Dalrock’s efforts might be counterproductive – or worse.
- Boxer: The Love of The Censor (2019 August 31)
- Dalrock: Proverbs 31 princesses (2019 September 3)
- Boxer (feat. Derek Ramsey): Embracing Feminist Scouting (2019 September 3)
- Boxer (feat. Chronoblip): Survival vs. Status (2019 September 7)
- Boxer: Manufacture of Consent in Microcosm (2019 September 8)
Just days after Boxer castigated Dalrock in post [1], Boxer’s place blew up after Dalrock wrote an article [2] discussing how the AHG taught a feminist agenda within the church.
Boxer’s primary claim to contention can be summed up in this quote from post [3] above.
“…blogs like Vox Day and Dalrock are really feminist blogs riddled with half-truths.
Dalrock, specifically, spends almost all his time vilifying anti-feminists. Given the choice between attacking a popular activist feminist organization or an anti-feminist organization whose worst crime is not being amazing at teaching theology, Dalrock chooses the latter. When faced with the choice to attack feminist thought policing or embrace it, Dalrock chooses the latter.”
Boxer wants to say Dalrock is a feminist for not properly accepting the AHC.
What’s Up With Boxer?
Boxer has put Dalrock under heavy scrutiny. Earlier this year, Dalrock went after Warhorn and It’s Good to be a Man (IGTBAM), and Boxer has taken him to task in the following posts.
- Boxer: Deconstructing Dalrock (2019 February 26)
- Boxer: Dalrock (The Neverending Screech) (2019 March 14)
We could put Boxer and his crew under the same speculum.
Within these and other posts in his past repertoire, Boxer has called out Christians as fake, bad, hypocrites, etc. He has called out the rejects of society and labeled them as Feminists. This is essentially what Dalrock and Vox do, except for a couple differences.
- Boxer doesn’t accede any faith to Christianity (or any other religion that I know of.)
- Boxer never calls out Feminism within Churchianity (to the best of my knowledge).
- Dalrock has an evangelical approach, not only about Christianity, but also about the Red Pill. Boxer’s place is more of a Red Pill coven for the like-minded.
Whenever Dalrock has a post that manifests these differences, Boxer jumps into the ring with his gloves on, ready to tear into Dalrock. So it seems Boxer is opposed to either (1) the evangelical approach, or (2) Christians calling out Feminist influence within the church, as though this would be hypocrisy, or a subtle form of treachery.
In other words, either he can’t seem to understand, or he’s not willing to address the difference between secular politics and what’s happening in the Church. Hence, he doesn’t see a problem with a Feminist gospel so long as the activities and soliloquies in the Church are coherent with Chivalry (traditional Feminism) in nature.
Or maybe he has an interest at stake there.
So, could Boxer and Derek be converged agent provocateurs, going undercover as abrasive Manospherians to undermine Dalrock’s influence and/or doxx him somehow?
Personally, I believe Boxer, Derek, Necron, Sharkly, et al. are motivated to pick a bone with Dalrock because Boxer, Sharkly, et al. have been ostracized from Dalrock’s comment section in the past, and also because Derek, Necron, et al. are displeased with any blogger who prefers to remain anonymous.
So I would lean against the idea of an organized effort and say, like attracts like.
The Frame
The larger question that Boxer poses is valid enough – whether Dalrock, Vox, et al. might be detracting from the popular support for individuals and organizations that make baby steps towards moving the Overton window to the Right. In other words, is Dalrock et al. conducive, incisive, or divisive?
Under a closer scrutiny of the most recent skirmish, the constitution of the American Heritage Girls (AHG) is central to the argument. Here, Gunner Q offered an informative review of the AHG: Checking the American Heritage Girls (2019 September 8).
I might summarize Gunner’s conclusion by saying that the AHG is better aligned to Christian values, compared to the Girl Scouts of America (GSA), but not totally free from feminist influence. This is “good enough” to be considered a Christian organization for Boxer’s consortium who are in tune with the times, but not good enough for ideological purists like Dalrock.
As a thought experiment, would anyone think that Sen. Wyden might be an undercover member of the Alt-Right, or a controlled opposition, solely based on the fact that he is attacking Glowbowl Big Tech giant Farcebook?
Or would you guess that we are seeing a spokesman for the more extreme Left chastising a leader of the less extreme Left for dragging their feet and slowing the shakedown cruise towards progressivism?
Likewise, would anyone suspect that Dalrock (or Vox) might be a Zi0nist social engineer who helped build the Manosphere, only to then destroy it by fomenting internal bickering, based on the fact that he attacks the doctrine of popular preachers and girl scout organizations?
Or would you guess that we are seeing a mouthpiece for the more extreme Right chastising leaders of the less extreme Right for not being sufficiently Right?
Boxer and company have come to a conclusion reminiscent of the former, by arguing that Dalrock is (1) anonymous, (2) unreasonably, and at times offensively overprotective of his identity and his blog, and (3) intellectually dishonest. He’s got a following that agree with him, including Derek, and Earl of all people. But I am yet to be convinced.
Reasons (1) and (2) are debatable, but perfectly understandable. Concerning (3), even supposing someone is intellectually dishonest, does that necessarily mean that their basic premises and conclusions are in error? Or perhaps it might only suggest that they are less well skilled in Aristetolian logic and debate?
A third possibility is that they are sarcastically/hyperbolically utilizing any number of logical fallacies in order to (1) emphasize the foolishness of the argument being entertained, as well as to (2) captivate the readers and (3) provoke critical thinking with a foolhardy jest.
Although I am no expert in literary devices, I do enjoy toying with them in my writings just for the fun of it, and I have recognized that Dalrock does the same in his work, much to the chagrin of others.
One addendum… Jokers and Jacks to the Right!
The Reframe
As an abstract concept, the Overton Window looks like this.
The question is, why are we now seeing intra-fighting on both sides of the political aisle, instead of inter-fighting?
I suggest the answer might be because the Overton window has now split into a Leftward migrating window, and a Rightward drifting window. Something like this.
FB and the GSA are within the “Politically Correct” Overton window being proscribed by the Left. Meanwhile, IGTBAM, AHG, and to a lesser extent, Warhorn, are trying to stay within a freshly budding Overton window on the Right. Most of the other pastors criticized by Dalrock are floating in the converged, No Men’s Land (pun intended).
Entities in either window must appear acceptable to their public constituencies in order to attract more people, to gain popularity and the financial solvency that goes with it, and/or to avoid persecution. If we play hardball, we might call their stance a pragmatically graceful compromise.
Why must Religious groups compromise? It’s because they’re in a feminized Society, and like FB, to stay in business, they need to connect with the viewpoints of a large number of real people who don’t know how far off the mark they stand.
The AHG tries to offer an alternative program for girls that is closer to Biblical teaching, but they also try to make themselves attractive and identifiable to the larger community, which has already been corrupted through Feminist influence and Churchianization.
IGTBAM tries to spoon feed the Red Pill in micrograms to the wider Christian community. They can’t push milligrams of the stuff, because then they’d be condemned as raycis, misogynistic, phobic, etc., ad nauseum.
But religious orgainizations are not the only ones who must compromise. Fakebuck as well as the GSA know they have to stay within their respective Overton windows to stay relevant and lucrative. Greater numbers of adherents are necessary before the Overton window can be said to shift through continual reeducation and exposure to their respective ideas.
In other words, all these groups are limited by their respective Overton windows – how much people can accept as normal. But at the same time, all these groups contribute to the movements of their respective Overton windows – what people can adopt as relevant truth. Those who actively push the boundaries of what people can adopt as relevant truth might be defined loosely as Evangelicals. It might not be their express purpose, and they may not even be conscious of this, but in the larger sense, their influence has some impact on what people choose to believe as the “norm”.
Dalrock, IGTBAM, the AHG, and Wyden too, are all making efforts to move the Overton window to where they think it should be.
Dalrock and Wyden, on the other hand, are setting the goal post closer to home, and castigating those who don’t line up, rank and file, to the Word of God or the Noo Odor agenda, respectively.
As a point in case, Many of Dalrock’s posts (such as this one with the excerpt following), show that he is conscious of being an “outsider”, hoping for the Overton to budge a bit.
“I know for many of you this really isn’t a bad place. If you are a feminist or a player, this is pretty close to paradise. But if you are like me you very much want to leave. Everyone always asks, why don’t we just build a boat and sail away from here? We could make it to the land of sanity. But it isn’t that simple I’m afraid. Every time it looks like we are about to make it home, one of the Gilligans manages to screw it up.”
In his posts, Dalrock is chastening Warhorn, IGTBAM, and the AHG, but from a wider and more distant perspective, the slow drift of the Overton is the cause of his subterfuged frustration, and not so much the various individuals and organizations subjected to his criticism.
Final Shakements
The respectable constituents of the current bipartisan system are comprised of who’s right on the Left, and what’s left of the Right, with a large number of subfactions revolving around these entities.
Dalrock and Boxer may very well be a trite example, while Zuck and Wyden are only slightly more pertinent. Readers could probably imagine many other examples.
The main point of this essay observes that the Left wing has coherent entities who argue about how far left the Left should be. Likewise, those on the Right are quarreling about how to set up shop.
Moveover, there is very little intermediary talk of agreement between the Left and the Right anymore. Thus, these factions are no longer working together for the common interests. Instead, they are each focused on their respective pet issues, only colliding in the public sphere when a conflict of interest materializes.
Are we seeing a binary polarization within the West? Have the different groupthinks of society become so diverse and disconnected that socio-political sub-cultures are forming between the Right and the Left?
I’m tempted to conclude that the old bipartisan political structure is nearing an end to its useful relevancy, and that an atomized political structure is on the horizon.
Tell us, what’s your shake?
Related
- The Orthosphere: You must fight to keep your beliefs inside the Overton Window (2013 March 10)
- XYZ (feat. David Hiscox): Thought for the Day: There is no Overton Window (2017 November 7)
