When Tolerance Becomes Delusion

Pretending that differences don't exist doesn't make society better... only crazier

“Generally speaking, women need a reason to have sex; men need a place. The sexual universe of gay men is the sexual universe of men without the civilizing, restraining influence of women.” -Holly MathNerd

“Wherever you find a great man, you will find a great mother or a great wife standing behind him -- or so they used to say. It would be interesting to know how many great women have had great fathers and husbands behind them.”
― Dorothy L. Sayers

“Instead of being presented with stereotypes by age, sex, color, class, or religion, children must have the opportunity to learn that within each range, some people are loathsome and some are delightful.”
― Margaret Mead

I was dating a significantly younger woman (which is standard practice for men in their late-thirties who still want to produce children) a couple of years ago. She had majored in sociology as an undergraduate so, although she was extremely intelligent, she had been taught many wrong and stupid things. I wasn’t as interested in the merely incorrect beliefs about reality, though-I was interested in the dogmas she had picked up (at a mid-tier private Florida university, hardly a stronghold of woke ideology).

Here are a few examples:

• Group IQ differentials are due to ‘cultural bias’ in tests. When I asked her what she meant by that she wasn’t entirely sure… nor should she explain how a test could be ‘culturally biased’ towards or against certain groups in the subjects of spatial awareness or arithmetic calculation. She couldn’t explain why ALL standardized tests (The ASVAB, the LSAT, the SAT, the ACT, civil service exams, etc.) replicated the same bell curves with (roughly) the same placements for the same individuals. She had never interrogated this extremely important idea but she was sure that it was correct (until we began speaking about it) and, moreover, that believing otherwise was a moral error, not just an epistemological one.

• Black Americans are at especial risk in interactions with police. I can’t recall the exact number she guessed when I pressed her to estimate how many unarmed black citizens are killed by police every year but it was certainly in the hundreds. In fact, about 10-15 unarmed black citizens are killed by police each year, and this includes people driving their cars at police, people trying to grab the guns of police or kill them with their hands. Even that number doesn’t reflect what activists think it does, in other words. Black and white Americans have about the same risk of dying in interactions with police, but police tend to interact with black people at about 3x the rate (and all data indicates that that disparity should actually be greater to guarantee the safety of black and white citizens). Bottom line: there is no greater risk for black citizens in their interactions with police and the absolute numbers of black citizens wrongly murdered by police is very small. Neither of these pieces of data has ever been included in the hundreds of media articles I’ve read about the issue.

• Gay men are NOT especially promiscuous relative to straight men… or different in any way other than sexual preference.

• Women are both naturally equal in every meaningful trait to men, as well as naturally superior in many (more honest, more caring, more productive, etc.). How this can be true was never fully explained to me.

I encounter misapprehensions like these on a daily basis and that’s normal: they are being taught systemically in most of our schools. Today I want to address one element of this new modern orthodoxy: the new, enforced regime of approved stereotypes and anti-stereotypes. More or less anyone living in the modern world or venturing onto Twitter (X) or watching films or shows released in the past few years or taking corporate DEI trainings or humanities courses at the college level will recognize bits of these memetic structures; they are our cultural dogma, strongest at the top of society, in places where people are whiter and richer and safer than elsewhere.

I remember one time hearing a YouTuber who was credibly accused of emotional and physical abuse against a number of sad, insecure girls (the kind who seem to exist in a weird and largely digital world, raised without the sense that previous generations seemed to intuitively possess regarding the predatory nature of many young men). This creator (Onision) cultivates a shrill and volatile persona. I was a bit surprised to hear that he’d preyed upon many young women; I said he “sounded gay”. Now: is that a precise description? No. Are there MANY, many masculine and otherwise ordinary gay men in the world? Undoubtedly. Most fit this description. I would never claim that most gay men sound anything like this individual, or that they, as a group, sound similar. However, there is a stereotypical kind of gay tonality and delivery and body language. It’s campy and over the top and it doesn’t represent most gay men, but it’s so universally familiar that I probably don’t even have to describe it for you. When I encounter people who speak and gesture in this way I often assume they’re gay and, in the event that my assumption is either positively confirmed or disconfirmed it’s nearly always the former.

This is what’s known as a ‘natural stereotype.’ It’s a model of the world that uses certain traits or manners of speaking or clothing choices, etc. to sort people into categories. It’s based on many interactions and observations over time and it’s mostly an unconscious process. It can be unreliable and should never be confused with certain knowledge about the people being evaluated (that can veer uncomfortably close to prejudice) but there is a reason that all humans stereotype. It’s incredibly useful in world with limited information in which consequential decisions must be made often and quickly. More to the point: there’s no escaping this tendency. Our culture (especially among the young and progressive) might feel that they have transcended the practice of stereotyping but all they’ve really done is self-consciously put certain stereotypes into a category labelled ‘forbidden’ and then stigmatized the expression and even acknowledgment of them. In order to do this, the stereotypes must first be acknowledged and understood by everyone involved so its’s immediately self-defeating… but it has other drawbacks as well. A woman seeing a gang of young black men hanging around under a broken streetlight might feel a faint premonition of danger. She could validate this and not walk right next to them, turn down her headphones, and maintain some minimal alertness. Statistics would bear this course of action out. Security consultants consistently tell people to honor their intuitions and defer to the safer course of action. You might not know why a person or group feels worrisome to you but your perception can detect a hundred cues that don’t rise to the level of conscious awareness and they should be honored. Our modern orthodoxy would command her to repress her worry and acta against it, to avoid the self-identification as a racist, which is literally the worst thing that anyone can now be according to this worldview (worse than Osama Bin laden, worse than sexual predators, worse than murderers). But a group of any young men is a possible threat to a lone woman. That reflexive emotion could be triggered by a group of black or white men. Only in the former case would the social conditioning kick in, despite the very salient fact that the group of black men are not any less threatening (in a statistical sense). We are training people to ignore the cues they need to survive, associate, hire, date, and communicate effectively. Moreover we are training them to not even verbalize or share the impressions they have formed. Natural stereotyping is inextricably bound up with many of the negative generalizations that our society now completely forbids but it’s a concept that’s never spoken about. The lessons it teaches are often directly contradictory to the modern orthodoxy but survival strategies are simply too deeply ingrained in human psychology. What we end up with is a situation in which everyone knows certain thing to be, generally, true. We just can’t verbalize the things we know on pain of social stigma and loss of status. This is a an unsustainable situation.

There’s also the fact that the modern orthodoxy only encompasses certain very narrowly-drawn stereotypes (which are often considered to be negative, but are sometimes only conventional). We cannot regard women, as a group, as more agreeable or physically weaker or less assertive than men, even thought we recognize this to be generally true and social science data strongly supports it. We can’t imply that women, as a group, might be less suited for or inclined towards dangerous jobs or physical labor. Again, everyone knows the generalization to have merit… but try mentioning it in a gender studies or any other liberal arts class these days. I guarantee that you will be treated as a pariah who’s talking dangerous nonsense. The selective nature of the modern orthodoxy becomes glaringly apparent once you interrogate the many negative generalizations that are not forbidden: certainly any negative view of white people as a group; any consideration of men (just not nonwhite men) as especially dangerous or aggressive; any definition of married people as boring or unhappy, or businessmen as greedy, or Southern white folks as ignorant, or conservatives as hostile and bigoted. I could go on ad nauseum, but the point is not whether or not these generalizations have merit. Merit is besides the point. MANY forbidden generalizations have a great deal of merit… but they are nonetheless forbidden. The fact that these stereotypes are not only allowed but are enthusiastically promoted indicates that it’s not some scrupulous dislike of stereotypes which is at play here, or a reliance upon social science or the (ethically sound) insistence that group generalizations not be applied to individuals whenever possible. The allowable generalizations just listed can be applied to individuals in the most sweeping and hasty manners… because they are allowed. Not only do they not violate the modern orthodoxy, they are a part of it.

The ironic thing is that these generalizations only arouse such a strong reaction from the orthodox because they are widely recognized and endorsed. The idea that women, as a group, are socially awkward isn’t particularly valid (as far as I know-I would guess it’s rather the opposite) and if a person mentioned this stereotype they would be met with only confusion and probably cordial disagreement. That’s because this stereotype, while negative, doesn’t accord with any conventional wisdom or traditional generalizations, so the orthodox are comfortable treating it as merely wrong, and not heretical.

These reactionary anti-stereotypes ideas don’t arise naturally in the interactions between people. They are created in a certain artificial bubble within American society, and then their endorsement is mandated by some particularly angry and vocal enforcers who implicitly see their role as agents of change, redeeming an evil and twisted society through the sanctioning of wrong- and right-think. Notably, the ideas originally arose in academia, but that was two generations ago. With their domination of the teachers’ colleges and the their profusion into entertainment and HR departments and law firms and hedge funds the orthodoxy is now systemic. However, because the vector of these ideas is still concentrated in colleges (especially private colleges and especially in liberal arts and humanities departments) there is a strong class correlation to these ideas and a (less strong) correlation with sex. Men tend to honor the modern orthodoxies less than women, for men don’t work indoors as often and are less well-represented in creative and administrative fields. Poor and working class people are generally not taught the orthodoxies, and are usually more concerned with maintenance and survival, rather than appearing virtuous in the eyes of sanctimonious cultural elites. These are ideas which are still disportionately well-subscribed to and influential in rich and well-educated circles, especially among women. I will use a tangential example of the ways ideas such as these are spread, and their uneven distribution: the term ‘BIPOC.’ BIPOC, as a word, is not one of the reactionary orthodoxies I’m describing. It’s simply a label for nonwhite people which has arisen in the past 5 years or so. It’s fairly incoherent. It stands for ‘black, indigenous, and people of color’. However, black people ARE people of color and the only ‘indigenous’ people the label encompasses are also ‘people of color’. The English are indigenous to England (by any reasonable definition) and the Irish to Ireland. Are they BIPOC? No. The strange efflorescence of this label is highlighted by the one which it has (partially) replaced: ‘POC’, or ‘people of color’ (itself just a strange replacement of the more logical and precise ‘nonwhite’). If black and indigenous people (the ones included by the people who say such things, anyway) ARE people of color, why would a new term be necessary? I’ve never actually known a nonwhite person (without at least a graduate education) who referred to themselves or others as ‘BIPOC’. This is a label which seems to have popped up in the halls of critical theory-inspired activist departments and organizations and quickly became known as the ‘right’ word for this vast and poorly-defined group. Like the reactionary anti-stereotypes I’ve mentioned it arose in the same way and has spread through the same channels. The people who unironically use ridiculous terms like ‘BIPOC’ are the same true believers who hold that there is no delivery or speech pattern that could be understood to be ‘sounding gay’ or that women are not more nurturing or less imposing than men or that a group of black men (of any appearance or composition or behavior) should never be treated as potentially threatening. To stretch the lesson farther: they are same true believers who write modern scripts in which every male character is weak and foolish and very female one is strong and capable. They are the same believers who believe that reducing penalties for shoplifting won’t encourage shoplifting and who believe that reducing or eliminating cash bail or heavy sentences for crimes won’t cause the crime rates to rise. They are the same believers who spread the ideas that merit and standardized tests and the market economy are all inherently oppressive (in some way). They believe that beauty standards (for women, anyway) and a positive social premium on fit bodies is oppressive, marriage is oppressive, normal sex and gender roles and standards of responsibility and efficiency are oppressive. These are all ideas which are notable for their direct contradiction to the things that everyone actually knows to be, basically, correct. They are, furthermore, ‘luxury beliefs’ taught by the privileged to the privileged. Hence their advertisement and enforcement serve as status symbols. This is one of the more direct reasons that these ideas are practically unknown (and treated as ridiculous, on their faces) by all working class communities.

To return to the narrow concern of this piece, which is the social maintenance of anti-stereotypes: what is the solution?

• First, the association between the new stereotype regime (and the silly labels constantly generated by the believers, and the rest of their outlandish beliefs about the world) and privilege should be endlessly pointed out. Disagreeing with a social justice believer will get you nowhere. Illustrating the incongruence with tradition and social science does nothing when the person you’re interacting with believes that tradition and social science (and logic, and standards of proof) are themselves oppressive social formations. However, pointing out that these ideas are now the religion of the elite in our society discomfits them to no end. They consider themselves to be radicals, remaking an immoral society according to a redemptive plan. revealing that they are, in fact, the power structure and that their ideas are artificial items of faith, learned in the halls of privilege will quickly make them untenable.

• Secondly, stereotypes are never, themselves, bad. They can have ill effects and they can be wrong but social science is how that is illuminated and judged, not a standard of hurt feelings or marginalized groups. These generalizations are usually only ethically dangerous when they’re applied to individuals. When negative generalizations are applied to individuals with insufficient evidence, that is prejudice. When prejudice is combined with hostility that is bigotry. Prejudice and bigotry should always be resisted and condemned. Notably, this also applies to hostility and prejudice towards the rich, or white people, or men, or Trump supporters. ALL hostile and negative stereotypes applied too widely are unethical, and harmful to the stereotypers and the stereotyped… not just the ones disapproved by our culture.

• Lastly, communication is, as always, important. In a diverse society with billions of constantly varying interactions there will be negative stereotypes, and some will be incorrect. The solution for those is to be able to discuss them honestly, without being made to feel like a bad person. Certainly repression and shaming won’t lead us to a better place. It will just continue the trend which is already well underway: the establishment of an elite orthodoxy with little real-world contact.

Beliefs don’t make a person bad. Actions do. A person can believe every item of the modern orthodoxy and be a terrible and anti-social individual. This often seems to be the case, for some reason. Conversely, a person can subscribe to every negative stereotype about off-limits groups and maintain the most traditional ideas of sex and achievement and still treat everyone with kindness and a general measure of fairness. Rather than reversing the valence of certain stereotypes and enforcing implicit and rigid codes of thought and speech, we should emphasize the value of treating everyone according their their own demonstrated worth and giving every new person the same basic standard of compassion and respect. This time-tested and conventional standard won’t be as satisfying for the mobs on Twitter but it will yield a healthier and happier society.

Thanks for reading! Please subscribe, like, comment, and share.