I thought I posted this. Glitch in the machine, perhaps. I thought it was one of the most insightful things from SSC ever, but it did leave me with some questions for the author. ...

I saw you link this in deansolecki's "white man" post, and I thought it was a very perceptive response; I wasn't going to touch his post with the swarm of angry redditors buzzing around, though. It's funny because I would consider myself to be an angry white man; however, if asked, what am I angry about, I'm frustrated by systemic racism and sexism, economic inequality and lack of political agency for the poor and minorities, the same things (I'm assuming) that make him an angry white man. I suppose he was just trying to flip the semantics around, in the same way some racist talking-head in the media might bleat about "problems of 'black culture,'" he can do a similar song and dance for "white culture." Ultimately, it didn't really feel like he was railing against himself, or providing some sort of insightful self-critique, he was using it as a code word or dog whistle for the Red Tribe.

I thought this was an interesting assertion:

Research suggests Blue Tribe / Red Tribe prejudice to be much stronger than better-known types of prejudice like racism. Once the Blue Tribe was able to enlist the blacks and gays and Muslims in their ranks, they became allies of convenience who deserve to be rehabilitated with mildly condescending paeans to their virtue. “There never was a coward where the shamrock grows.”

When I think about my predjudices, certainly race, sex or religion might color them, and I try to take as much conscious thoughtful control over those as I can, but if I'm told, "this person you're about to meet is a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'" all of a sudden I have a lot of snap judgement about what their opinions and preferences may be, perhaps judgments over what kind of person they are; there is a lot of ideology that is packed into those labels, and in many ways, we're encouraged to make judgments along those lines. To be sure, I think those among us who enable the status quo deserve judgment and scorn, but I'm not convinced that the mainstream leadership of either red or blue factions are really interested in dismantling or even examining the problematic aspects of the status quo.

Spending your entire life insulting the other tribe and talking about how terrible they are makes you look, well, tribalistic. It is definitely not high class. So when members of the Blue Tribe decide to dedicate their entire life to yelling about how terrible the Red Tribe is, they make sure that instead of saying “the Red Tribe”, they say “America”, or “white people”, or “straight white men”. That way it’s humble self-criticism. They are so interested in justice that they are willing to critique their own beloved side, much as it pains them to do so. We know they are not exaggerating, because one might exaggerate the flaws of an enemy, but that anyone would exaggerate their own flaws fails the criterion of embarrassment.

The Blue Tribe always has an excuse at hand to persecute and crush any Red Tribers unfortunate enough to fall into its light-matter-universe by defining them as all-powerful domineering oppressors. They appeal to the fact that this is definitely the way it works in the Red Tribe’s dark-matter-universe, and that’s in the same country so it has to be the same community for all intents and purposes. As a result, every Blue Tribe institution is permanently licensed to take whatever emergency measures are necessary against the Red Tribe, however disturbing they might otherwise seem.

I look at the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wallstreet movement as two interesting groups which had the potential to upset the red/blue balance. The author mentions grey tribes, which if I'm understanding him correctly, are a kind of disaffected group that may have some qualities or overlaps from both tribes or neither tribe. I think both of those movements were borne out of a grey tribe. In the case of the Tea Party, what started as a kind of economic response to the bailouts and financial crisis, became a kind of crazy religious, vaguely racist movement, wholly swallowed by the Republican party, really, the essence of "Red Tribe." Occupy Wallstreet, again, started as an economic response to the bailouts and financial crisis, and at least to their credit, rejected becoming part and parcel of the Democratic party, but from what I understand, the "social justice" messaging started to overwhelm the "economic justice" messaging, trying to push it towards blue tribe identity. That, coupled with the security state/local police crackdown, allowed it to be fairly well marginalized for most people. It is my personal belief that a grey tribe movement like that could significantly affect the status quo, but mainstream mass media and the deep state are two large social/political powers which are very invested in maintaining the red/blue equilibrium.