A peevish man who can self identify as such may be able to tamp down the tendency to follow every unproductive rabbit trail about which his nature whispers to him, “go down there and find a skirmish”. Framing things with peeve disclaimers is not sufficient. The unfettered peeve chaser is boring.
To chase peeves dilutes real topical input. I hope this post isn’t just giving over to peevishness.
It had been awhile since a topic on a big blog like Dalrock’s brought out my irritation at the low fruit picking done by poseurs, cyber-intellectuals, actual learned men and low thinking reactionaries alike, who glom on to every opportunity to point out the failures of social conservatives. They do it with repetitive illustrations that are not particularly clever. “Socons are throwing men to the family court lions”……like that.
After open minded exposure to truths found around the sphere one needn’t be overly clever to criticize social conservatives (and the implied first cousins…evangelical Christians) . Given all the men reading those words, why can’t most see the dervish glee that permeates the comments of the self-anointed chief intellects of the manosphere when they jet into opportunities to take not-particularly-clever potshots at socons, like sharks and barracudas with their illusory grins rushing into chummed water where they end up tearing one another apart.
I asked in Dalrock’s comments for an ideological label that can be hanged on the subset of commenters who are most prolific and predictable when the socon chum bucket is poured over the side. They refer to the existence of other like minded enlightened so I presumed the existence of an ideological cohort and without prejudice asked for a descriptor.
I was not trying to prove some silly notion that those who take up socon schadenfreude are the socon’s archenemy……..liberals. If someone thought that they are wrong. By miles.
The two people I saw responses from did, intentionally or accidentally, nod in the direction my question was intended. They referred to subsets of the Christian faithful. The obvious issue with that is that those most predictably peppering the boxes with ever less clever anecdotes about socons and referring to who is and isn’t receptive to discourse on the topics where socons have gone off the reservation, those commenters are not likely going to be a part of the subsets of Christians to which those responses referred. Therefore they have to be labeled with ideological terms, not religious terms.
The peevish part of the problem is therefore that those who are first and loudest to jump into discussions about how socons/evangelicals are complicit in the fall of men are those who have always slithered away from categorization. If some label gets close to applicable they will slightly alter some already tediously nuanced position so that what they know cannot be known widely enough to ever have sufficient adherents that it be a nameable cohort.
For countless centuries people have done the same with religion. Still do. Today we see the religious analog to those who won’t claim an ideology in the common declaration of “I’m very spiritual”. Keep ’em guessing. Don’t let anyone figure it out. To be figured out is to reduce ones uniqueness. Keep the group membership where it is. Just one. The one who gets it, surrounded by a small group on sycophants who do not get it. Sycophants as chum.
It is pride, not ideology or spirituality that drives this phenomenon. It is why I asked in the manner I did, “By what shall they be known?”.
If this is merely a peeve it is the most discouraging one on my encyclopedic list. I don’t have a ready response held in abeyance for each potential answer. I’m not waiting to pounce with a sub-peeve. Either there will be no response or there will be a response.