salomon -- Day [entries|friends|calendar]
ivan

[ userinfo | insanejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | insanejournal calendar ]

candid celibate [23 Jul 2019|12:04pm]
in one iteration of current online sociality there is a dissentive among two factions, the canceller and the cancelled, and it is nagging on the culture. it is like a battle of power, where one side is skilled in attack and one in defense, but the longer the conundrum remains unresolved the side of the attackers moral logic will increase in pervasiveness. on the sidelines, watching in confusion or blatantly keeping on with their own, is a vastness of normies. this battle could be construed as simulating another online based war of ideas, the one between ugly men and men who score pretty women. one wonders, is the canceller the incel, and the cancelled the chad, or vice versa?



differences between the canceller and the cancelled; the prior desires to be cancelled, the latter can never cancel. the canceller; a pessimist disguised as optimist, whose facade displays a variety of traits that are stylistically connected to virtue. playfulness, openness, acceptance, inclusion, trust, creativity. often these signifiers of good morality are performed so intensely they rapidly go transparent, accelerating beyond any threshold of believability. the canceller misses no chance to directly, or as indirectly as they can bear, signal to the world when they have taken stances for the greater good of all, hyperfocused on eliminating any potential semiotic or semantic toxicity from their vocabulary. they are apparently so fond of the world and its people that they will go to distant lengths to make sure everyone else will treat it in the exact same manner as themselves, peculiarly often in the name of anti-authoritarian causes. in short the canceller, like any person, sometimes dislikes things but, unlike many, is shocked to the highest degree when all other people does not actively reprehend said thing. yet, the canceller is simultaneously worked up in another manner. that is, they yearn for the position of the cancelled, the mark of successful transgression, the role of the pariah, in a desperate, almost horny way. the “oh boy i’ll sure be cancelled for saying this but…” hails in between giggles and the clicking of nervous nail biting. why is it so alluring? maybe the canceller wishes someone put as much care as they themselves have put into collecting tweets, screenshots, receipts; into compiling websites and writing open letters; into blocking and muting and, not stopping there, making absolute sure that others do the same – into caring about them. are these people dedicating their lives to combing for tiny signals of amorality maybe yearning for the very attention they force themselves to navigate the world with?

the cancelled; an optimist disguised as pessimist. as in not exactly over enthusiastic towards every little flaccid attempt at conjuring an illusion of progress, and in a loosening up of moral, even just slightly. the intrinsic playfulness of a rude and curse ridden group jargon. the trust in people, and their capacity to balance and decide. the cancelled can never cancel, only look away, pause the youtube video, unfollow the account, and think to themself; and if other people want to, they can too. what else is implied in that, if not trust, meaning optimism. the cancelled moves on, thinks and rethinks, accepts, changes direction, regresses; all in their own pace, it is the unbotheredness of faith in the world.



the moralist and the esthete; one reads the artwork according to a set of guidelines, perhaps even rules, the other just feels it, walks past the stuff that refuses to engage. this is not to say one is to prefer, perhaps the moral direction an artwork takes actually matters the most, carries the heaviest implication of value, perhaps the affective state it triggers, perhaps if it succeeds doing humor, perhaps if its sexy enough we should deem it good. it is always decision, and not necessarily the same one every time. its all subjectivity, moral is subjectivity. nonetheless, the decision for moral good is tricky to deploy in praxis. it is seen to necessitate certain material effects, to instigate processes that make actual life actually better, a massive undertaking that doesnt fit nicely in an art world that comprises a million agendas that stretch in a million directions. it is a risky endeavour to advocate for the greater good, one is so often disrupted by nature and everyday life, carefreeness and joy.

the incel relentlessly weaponises against the chad who, with his dick up some sexy chicks pussy, if not completely oblivious to the attacks at least remain highly unconcerned. the cancelled will, if their predator has devoted enough time to their project, sometimes notice material consequences as result of their cancelling – an employer googled you and found some troubling “information”, your pictures are pushed to the top of google results alongside allegations, sometimes your family and even friends will be put under fire, people you were close to might in moments of confusion be coerced into announce their distancing from you. the cancelled, while of course untenably having to suffer the outcomes of this, will remain highly unconcerned. the dick of the cancelled is their mind, and the hot pussy it is banging is a multiplicity of ideas, a space of multitudes for the mind to exist in. it is the esthetes space, meaning the space of pleasure.

while the incel forms his ideology around a biological determinism, where nose shapes and jaw angles are main factors in forcing the incel into his sexual poverty, there is vocally less weight put on genetics in the arguments of the canceller. they, instead, often resort to terms like safety and inclusion, relying on presumptions of the morally good in coercive combat towards structural injustices. but as cancelling exceedingly is done in the name of social justice, meaning an incorporation of marginalised identities into e.g. circles of creative production, in a world where the marginalisation structurally is based on genetic differences only, it is evidently a rhetoric that utilises genetic dispositions at the core of its argument, while hiding this core by attributing it to the structures and the structures only. the perpetuation of identities tied to genetics is performed honestly by the incel, and dishonestly by the canceller, who continues objecting to a system by its own terms.



so the canceller asserts their right to vigilantism, and puts down great effort to proclaim and sustain their moralities. while the cancelled usually sticks to spending their time creating and consuming art, writing texts, developing critical or political or sexual and esthetical thoughts, the canceller puts all of these processes to a halt in order to critique any minute flaws in the progressions of the cancelled. paradoxically the canceller, being the most vocal proponent of a flourishing creative and intellectual scene, contributes the least to it, if not actively sterilising it. just like the incel projecting his unrequited lust onto the chad, in hopes of ever being, even for just a moment, treated with the same sexual passion, the cancelled resuscitates the medieval thingstead with an unbelievable force, and they wish so badly someone would do the same for them.

for the one who does not care about preserving and entertaining heterogeneous culture, the cancellation must be welcomed; embrace it! cancel what scares you, cancel what excites you! prove youre in it til the end by cancelling the ones you love the most! for the rest, remain unbothered and carry on with your practices. in this setup i am likely to be one of the normies, as i combine the disinterest in the ideological coerciveness of the canceller with an incentive enough to write a thousand words on the matter. and as esthetically compelling chad is, i have the weakest spot for incels in my heart, and i will in the name of coherence try my best to feel likewise for the canceller too.

navigation
[ viewing | July 23rd, 2019 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]