Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

the people beating up anyone are the cultural underclass/proles, be it rural whites or ghetto blacks -- by definition these are not cultural elites.

Physical violence (and any indicator of physical needs- shelter, food, safety) basically signals 'cheap animal unit', and animals are useful tools to be managed by the machinery (of capital, patriarchy, globalism, blah blah etc whatever left or right wing flavor of 'power structure' you mentally choose to sketch it out, it's there churning, by whatever name you like)

you seem to confuse elite signaling and countersignaling with personal sufferings when in reality, both are exactly how it's supposed to go

The cultural machinery works thru contradiction and desperate elite mimicry, people trying to aspirationally sound like the class right above them, leading to tragedy of the commons, for example:

Rich women support bail reform/ islamic immigration/ transgender craze/ porn-culture that gets poorer women raped/ scared/ fired / cheapened, and that's the new feminism

Pragmatic feminists/terfs/lesbians/mom groups/anti-vaccers are the new witches to be burned as the purity test for desperate psuedo-middle-class aspirational women, supplying the cultural fodder content mill, while Republican women/Christian evangelicals make popcorn...

Abortion rights are a cheap voting lever, the more passionate you are the more the machine knows how to use you, people are putting their carrots and sticks in their bios, announcing the best ways to control them with a smile lol

Women in Iran and Afghanistan not allowed to go to school, that is defacto no longer a feminist issue but something something 'why not both' meme-mumbles by nonbinary mental illness connoisseurs.

Gays getting beat up by rural whites so they move to metropolis and work for the rainbow utopia of corporate America is exactly how the machine eats :)

You are being dishonest because examples of the GOP pandering to white voters are well-documented and easily accessible. Either you never looked, in which case arguing at all is dishonest since you don't know what you're talking about, or you looked and ignored the mountain of evidence denying your view. The "script" part is likely about you shifting the goalposts. Why doesn't dog-whistling count as explicit pandering to white Americans? That isn't to say the GOP are always subtle, either. All in all, it seems pretty clear you're sealioning.

For the benefit of other readers though, I'll bite.

For instance, former congressman for Iowa Steve King tweeting about slavery [0] is pretty explicit. How about the slightly more abstruse but still pretty glaring white supremacist dog whistle [1] in response to a random Dutch guy complaining about muslims. He was in congress 2003-2021.

Of course Great Replacement rhetoric is also pushed pretty openly to rally white voters, with Tucker Carlson saying things like "demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions", and congresswoman for New York Elise Stefanik running ads saying "[Democrats'] plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington".

Do you accept these examples or do you need the GOP leadership to issue a letter signed by all party members stating they like white people?

[0] https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/1612505990305308672?s... [1] https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/1614259933469462528?s...

The nonces are still with us. Prostasia Foundation is the new NAMBLA, working hard to normalize "minor-attracted persons" within academia and the nonprofit space. They're aided by those who rationalize children's consent on questions of sexual and bodily integrity.

If you trust a nine-year-old boy to tell us they're actually a girl, and you trust an eleven-year-old child who wants to inject puberty blockers, and you oblige a thirteen-year-old girl who wants to inject testosterone and cut off her breasts at fifteen, where is the logical barrier to other forms of sexual consent?

> > 4chan is generally anti-ukraine-war

>The hippies were rooted in things that were objectively good: peace, [...]

>That contrasts sharply with 4chan’s demographics and motivations.

I know I shouldn't criticize the Current War lest I be accused of supporting the Current Enemy, but I just can't help but point out the irony here.

>bunch of closeted homophobic, racist, sexist, emotionally and mentally stunted

[italics mine]

Surely you must see the problem with this clause.

> Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate,

Okay, let's put it another way. Pretty much all of them agreed with me about the entitlement to basic decency. From this, I conclude that my views about basic decency probably aren't all that controversial, after all.

This disagreement exists online, and in the press. I haven't seen it in the real world. If "the heart of the […] debate" is fictional, maybe the debate itself is artificial.

> Some think

Literally who? I will share with you two anecdotes:

• I know some parents whose children, questioning their gender, thought they were trans for a few months. The worried parents advised caution, while doing their best to educate themselves about trans people: the kids (as everyone suspected) turned out not to be trans.¹

• Those parents of trans friends of mine who object to their transition? Also shitty (bordering on abusive) parents in other ways. (When you're holding something else at a much higher priority than your kids, you're probably a shit parent,² and I've yet to see a counterexample.)

So, yeah, I'm somebody who would agree with the letter of your first "basic decency" example. I would likely³ punch somebody who actually supported it in spirit. I mean, seriously. Who the actual [minced oath] is that arrogant, that they know what's right for some kid they've never met, based on a checklist? Arrogant enough to kidnap them from their (presumably loving) family? That's Oliver Twist-style child-rearing morality.

> Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience.

They're right to.⁴ Except, that "authoritarian pseudoscience" they're fighting against doesn't exist, and nobody in the world (with any power) is actually a proponent of it. The closest thing we've got is overworked and understaffed medical gatekeepers (one clinic for an entire country, in some cases) who make bad calls because they can't make good ones – to the point that only the law really listens to them any more. The solution to that problem is obvious.

> The first group holds power

Please show me an actual example of a member of this group.

---

¹: And yes, professionals usually can tell the difference. Not that a few months of blockers would actually have caused any real issues. (I currently lean towards the "radical autonomy" end of the spectrum, in case you haven't picked up on that; my reasons are many, and probably out of scope of this comment.)

²: Or your kid is in danger of significantly harming somebody else, or something like that. Children are people, after all: some are capable of evil. In these cases, though? Shitty parents.

³: Don't know for sure, though. I've never been in a position to punch one. (I'd like to think I'd try talking, first.)

⁴: In the jurisdictions I'm aware of, there's no such thing as "parental rights". There's children's rights – and in the vast majority of cases, a child's interests are best served by being with their parents. For example, in divorce cases, it's the child's right to have time with their parents, not the parent's right to have time with their child. That distinction can be significant, but only in edge-cases.