On Risk Taking and Dying

It must be assumed that anyone visiting dangerous places or doing anything life threatening at such places knows and accepts the risk of doing so.  If they don’t even read the signs, how sad, too bad.  I have hiked the mist trail in Yosemite many times knowing full well that one misstep or slip will be fatal.  I don’t take unnecessary risks for a pic or a selfie, but the rewards, including the rush of challenging death are worth the risk.  Everyone dies.  The deaths of those close to me affect me, but strangers or even friends who have accepted the risk of an untimely death and die affect me no more than their death from any cause would.

A friend of mine was an extreme skier, if you watch those movies you have probably seen herm skiing off a cornice and jumping a rock and free falling hundreds of feet.  His recent death, untimely from cancer, was much more tragic than any accident on the ski slopes would have been simply because hesh was not dancing with death, but running from it.

Stonekettle: Time of Danger

Stonekettle Station

---

Danger Close Posted: 30 Sep 2019 09:03 AM PDT Representative Denny Heck (D-WA): "Is it okay for a president to pressure a foreign government for help to win an election?" Director of National Intelligence (acting) Joseph Maguire: "It is unwarranted. It is unwelcome. It is bad for the nation." We are at a very, very dangerous moment in history. Trump is mad. Mad angry. Not mad insane – though that works too. Goddamn, is he mad. He’s so mad, he’s literally sputtering – something that I thought was mostly just a creative turn of phrase.  He stepped off Air Force One on Friday fuming, red faced, seething, sputtering mad, and yelled at reporters that he might try to file some sort of legal action to stop his impeachment. What these guys are doing, Democrats, what they’re doing to this country, is a disgrace and it shouldn’t be allowed! There should be a way of stopping it. Maybe legally through the courts. But they’re gonna tie up our country. I mean we can’t talk about gun regulation we can’t talk about … anything. Because frankly they’re so tied up, they’re so screwed up, nothing gets done except for when I do it! Shouldn’t be allowed! There should be a way of stopping it! Maybe legally though the courts. And maybe not. Maybe not. That’s the implication here, isn’t it? That maybe not part. The day before, when Trump was at the United Nations, in a meeting with his staff he raged: "They're almost a spy! Who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that's close to a spy." I mean, you do see it, don’t you?  The sense of outrage. Outrage that anyone should question Donald Trump. But the very word “whistleblower” exists for a reason. Because it is a legally protected check on power, on abuse, on greed, on crime, on government. Our laws, our entire nation is based on this idea. Our Constitution was designed around this very idea: that power should be limited. That power should be checked, should be called out, should be held accountable at every turn. And that those who would blow that whistle should be protected to the full measure of the law. Because without those willing to stand up, to speak truth to power, to sound the alarm, liberty dies. This was the reason for the First Amendment, so that the people would have the power to speak freely in criticism of their government, not just as a right, but as a duty; so that the press would have the ability to hold all of us but most especially government to account; so that the people might assemble in protest and face down government power with their own; so that government would be required to give redress of wrongs against its own citizens.  If conservatives are correct in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, then its entire purpose is so ordinary citizens might hold government to the ultimate account. And yet here they are. Ironically, hypocritically, suggesting that the those who call out suspected government abuse are somehow traitors. That it shouldn’t be allowed. That there should be a way of stopping it, perhaps legally and perhaps … not. We are at a very, very dangerous moment in history. Trump has always tended to see himself as a superior specimen misunderstood by the common rabble. He believes himself special. Above the laws which bind the common man. When he’s held to those same laws, be they natural or manmade, he’s offended. He feels demeaned, lessened, diminished. Public office amplifies his sense of martyrdom and he's becoming overtly, obviously, paranoid and publicly unstable. The term “siege mentality” might have been coined just for him. Worse, he surrounds himself with fringe nuts like Sebastian Gorka, political extremists like Stephen Miller and Steve Mnuchin, disgraced fanatics like General Mike Flynn, and an endless host of incompetent amateurs from Betsy DeVos to his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and it shows. These people, not one of them, has any idea how to run a Republic. These people have no idea how to deal with the world on an equal basis – because they do not see the world a place of equality. Far from it. They expect to give orders and have them obeyed. They expect the universe to bow down, to bend to their desires. Because it always has. No one questions the wealthy. No one criticizes a general. No one holds the privileged to account. Not to their faces. They are accustomed to subservience, not accountability.  The rules don't apply to these people. Not on social media, not in the courts, not in the military, not in the boardroom, not on Wall Street, not in politics, not in the Media, not anywhere. This isn’t my opinion, this is theirs in their own words:  I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything. You can do anything. They believe themselves entitled to this unquestioned power as their due. They believe themselves better. Better than you. Better than me. Better than everyone. This is how aristocracy is born, right here. And if it's not stopped now, here in this moment, then in a few generations they will be lords and princes and kings, born to power.  And we will be their serfs. This is a very, very dangerous moment in history. Impeachment doesn't just threaten Trump, or his office. It threatens the very self image of the privileged, who see themselves as the elite, as better, as born to power and above criticism or accountability, beyond the law and beyond reproach. If Trump can be removed from power, so can they. That terrifies them. You joke about guillotines, but you’d better goddamned believe they’re not laughing. They know. They remember. And they’re terrified that one day they’ll find their own heads on the block.  It’s too close now. This is a very dangerous time. For us, but more so for them. And they know it.  That’s what they mean when they say Make America Great Again. Great like when Robber Barons ruled America and the peasants paid for the privilege of eating out of their garbage cans. Great before the time of social safety nets and social programs, of unions and public education, before the common people claimed power for themselves, when profit was all and no one – no one – dared threaten their power. Like the Kings and the aristocracy who ruled over colonial America before the Revolution, there is nothing these modern elites fear more than the radical idea that power rests not with the privileged, not with those born to it, but with the ordinary citizen. And because they are afraid, afraid of you – and they are indeed afraid of you – and because they will do anything to hold on to power, to their image of themselves as superior, they have become very, very dangerous. Impeachment of one of their own directly threatens their power structure.  Whether it successfully removes the president from office or not, impeachment sets the very example they are most afraid of. There's an old saying, apocryphally attributed to Thomas Jefferson and ironically used as a rallying cry by those who would point to the Second Amendment as a proof their right to burn down the government and yet who right now directly support these very elites. It goes like this: When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Of course, Thomas Jefferson never said this. And likely never would. Because Jefferson of all the Founders understood the dynamics of wealth, privilege, power, and fear. Because when government fears the people, and when people fear their government in turn, what you get is chaos, what you get is civilization falling into war, revolution, and violent, bloody murder as each seeks to destroy the other. When the privileged feel their power threatened by those they see as their inferiors, that’s when you get tyranny.  When government fears its citizens, that’s when the boot comes down on your throat. Every. Time.  Worse, there will always be those on the bottom rungs of the ladder who see government falling into absolutism not as tyranny, but as opportunity. And they will cheerfully throw in with the powerful, hoping for a few scraps from the table, hoping to save themselves at the expense of their fellows. Hoping for that moment, finally, when they can shoot down their despised neighbors in an orgy of blood and rage. They'll willingly sell their souls, hoping that they themselves will be given some measure of power and privilege over those they – there on the bottom rung of the ladder – see as inferior, if only by a fraction, to themselves. This is a very dangerous time. Impeachment isn't just a threat to Trump, but to all of those who align themselves with him, and who benefit from his hate and fear, and who would be nothing without their privilege and sense of superiority, the brawlers and the wealthy alike.  They are terrified that the dam has been breached, that more whistleblowers will come forward. They don’t trust you, but they for damned sure can’t trust each other, not when the only way to save themselves might be to sell out their fellows. There is no honor among thieves and there is no loyalty among those who see integrity as a roadblock to power and wealth. And they will not go quietly. They've said so.  They will change the laws to give themselves power. They intend to spill blood, your blood, if necessary to keep that power. They will ally themselves with America's enemies against you if necessary. They will lie, cheat, steal, and murder. These are people who put children in cages and see nothing wrong with it and they'll do whatever they must to hold onto that power. You look at the White House, you look at who Trump surrounds himself with, who he's given power to, who has access to that power, who benefits from Trump's increasing megalomania – from Exxon to Russia – and you'd better believe the danger is real. But here’s the thing: we can face down that danger, return our nation to sanity without blood in the streets and bring that power to heel. We can. It’s possible. It would have been a hell of a lot easier, safer, a few years ago, when there was more of a margin, but you didn't believe the danger was real then. I hope you believe it now. Now that we stand on the very precipice with the pit yawning beneath our feet, I hope you can see the danger now.  I hope it's finally real to you. Because if you don't show up this time, no matter what – no matter what – then you’re not going to get another chance.  Your government, the wealthy, the powerful, they aren’t just afraid of you, they’re terrified.  And they damned well should be. But that makes them very, very dangerous – as are all cornered animals. Now, right now, is the time to hold these sons of bitches to account and show them who and what America is supposed to be. Yes, this is a dangerous moment in history. But then it always is. [Update] A day after I wrote this, Trump posted this to Twitter:  This is the president of the United States right here suggesting that his political enemies be arrested for "treason." This is the same definition -- the very same definition -- of "treason" used by dictators the world over: I.e. anyone who criticizes the state, and the state being me. You look at that. Look at it. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat, EVERY American should feel the hair standing up on the back of their necks right now. This cannot go on. Because arrests for "treason" WILL come next, followed by show trials. Followed by everything else. THIS is how it happens, right here. Trump needs to be removed from office. [end edit] Impeachment is dangerous. And that danger – that very danger right there, the very nature of it -- is why it must be done. And it is in the crucible of crisis, facing the greatest of dangers, when true, authentic greatness is forged. Now is the time. If you want a better nation, be better citizens. I would not be understood my dear Marquis to speak of consequences which may be produced, in the revolution of ages, by corruption of morals, profligacy of manners, and listlessness for the preservation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; nor of the successful usurpations that may be established at such an unpropitious juncture, upon the ruins of liberty, however providently guarded and secured, as these are contingencies against which no human prudence can effectually provide. It will at least be a recommendation to the proposed Constitution that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of Tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any Government hitherto instituted among mortals, hath possessed. We are not to expect perfection in this world; but mankind, in modern times, have apparently made some progress in the science of government. Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found on experiment less perfect than it can be made, a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration. -- George Washington, Letter to Lafayette, February 7, 1788

You are subscribed to email updates from Stonekettle Station. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

UBI not Reparations

 Those who really deserve reparations and their communities will benefit the most from UBI outside income, since most who deserve reparations are living hand to mouth and will spend the UBI in their neighborhood on goods and services provided by others who may have a bit more to invest either by saving a bit of the UBI or investing other resources saved from outside jobs or other income.  The economic multiplier in neighborhoods of folks who have a history of systematic discrimination is nearly 3 times.  That is each outside dollar is recycled in the neighborhood three times before it is lost to goods and services outside the hood. The UBI given to the rich is sequestered in banks or investments and does nothing for the economy of the wealthy but just as the rich and the poor can live under Freeway overpasses the rich and the poor get the same UBI. Also the poor pay no taxes on UBI, but the rich may well be pushed into the next bracket in a progressive tax plan.  In a progressive VAT the rich will lose most of their UBI to the douchbag tax.  

Ten Most Influential Books

 I’ll try to limit to 10

 Steinbeck:

The Red Pony. (My first gift book. 5 yr. birthday)

Grapes of Wrath

East of Eden

 Heinlein:

Have Space Suit Will Travel

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Stranger in a Strange Land 

 Jefferson:

The Jefferson Bible

 Asimov:

I Robot

 Pirsig:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

 Hofstadter:

Gödel, Escher, Bach

I just read my bookshelves to see what I missed.

None displace any of the 10 but deserve a place on the list:

 Niven, Pournelle:

The Mote in God’s Eye.

Oath of Fielty 

 Heinlein:

Most of the Juveniles

The Number of the Beast

Time Enough For Love

 Card:

Ender’s Game

 Jeffers:

Not Man Apart (Sierra Club/Ballantine Collection)

 Church:

The Cathedral of the World

 Fulghum:

All I Really Need To Know I learned in Kindergarten 

 Steinbeck:

Cannery Row

On RePUBliC!!1

Nyah Wynne

https://www.facebook.com/nyah.wynne/posts/2681680871905784

"We don't have a democracy, we have a RePUBliC!!1"

All democracies are republics. [Edit: this is not strictly true, what I should have said is any 'pure' democracy would be, but constitutional monarchies aren't republics]. Not all republics are democracies. These are not things that are in opposition. The only alternatives to democracy are oligarchy and monarchy(and in practice, monarchies are primarily oligarchic).

Our sainted Founding Fathers didn't oppose democracy in order to defend oppressed minorities. They were slavers. They were rich and powerful men whose families gained their hereditary wealth and power from service to the kings of Europe, who they'd just convinced the public were illegitimate. There was a very reasonable fear that putting the systems that legitimized and enforced their wealth and power up to a vote would result in them being rescinded. So they designed the system to insulate them from the public will.

The only minority they cared about in the slightest was the group James Madison referred to as "The Opulent Minority". Ie: themselves. The oligarchs.

I have always liked a truly democratic voting system where every candidate gets a yea or nay vote and the candidates with the least nays win.* Candidacy by petition so backing still would count whether corporate or grass roots. All regions use the same system to elect all candidates at all levels. in other words the nay votes filter up to the highest level the candidate represents.
*This not a misprint, the aye votes come with the petitions, so they don't count.

More later

 

Pete Seeger vs HUAC

I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line. 

Transcript

Making Undergraduate Neighborhoods Work

 The idea of neighborhoods might be an opportunity for Greeks to provide the seed for the social center of the neighborhood. I am assuming each neighborhood would be all classes with Frosh assigned a neighborhood at random to "grow up in". A Greek house and I still think a co-ed house is preferred, would be the social center of the neighborhood.  The hook is that the Greek house would be a three class house and freshmen from the whole campus would rush as usual and move as sophomores.  It is a axiom of Urban Planning that successful neighborhoods need placemaking. The Greek house social areas could be that placemaking center.

 The selectivity of the Greeks would provide the social contunity and traditions essential for good parties as they would select for party people, and conformance with Greek traditions.  A side benefit for freshmen is those that find themselves stuck in the wrong kind of neighborhood could opt out.  I am relatively certain that some neighborhoods will evolve into PhD tracks and others will be more well-rounded due to the Greek influence. It could be pointed out that many successful non-academic track alumni came from tight social organizations on campus like Rams Head, The Band, the Daily and Fraternities.

 Greeks that like the PhD neighborhoods can opt out of living in a Greek house as with co-ed housing not all members of the Chapters will fit.  Nevertheless the Greeks will have a place for chapter meetings etc. so that all will be included, even those living elsewhere. 

 SAEs might show the way for Ms. Cole to make her neighborhoods work.

Carlin Black '62
Two Year Social Chair.

Bringing Up Men Properly.

 It has been done for many decades even before Feminism introduced some of its idiocies that made it harder.  It helps if there are at least a couple of strong, competent females in the family, and the men, if any, do not preach the toxic masculinity dogma by example and word.  Note that the above combination was extremely rare prior to the 21st Century as toxic males were unable to deal with strong, competent females and therefore seldom had one as a co-parent. In the 21st century the option is generally dealing with strong competent women as partners or become an incel.  Note that the latter is still a common choice.

 The essence of the technique is taking notice of each example of toxic masculinity and pointing out, usually satirically, how bad a particular behavior is: 

• A couple of teens peeled away from a corner then slowed down for the attractive woman and the manchild with her to notice.  She did. "God! Am I ever impressed." dripping with satire. It should be noted that both the manchild and the showoffs got the message clearly. 
• 
  

   Such behavior will not get a desired response from a strong, competent woman.  If the manchild is being socialized to admire strong competent women the lesson will be remembered for life.

 The other component of the technique is the socialization of the manchild to admire strong competent women by example and pointing out the unattractive attributes of the traditional family next door.  Not to the extent of making the family next door lesser or unworthy of respect and neighborliness but pointing out the role disequilibrium of the parents and how each compensates.  

• A young woman was a concert quality pianist in her early teens.  Her much younger brother learned about practice, and dedication to an art by playing in the room as she practiced.  The two of them went to a major city department store where a Grand Piano was roped off for display in the lobby.  She went under the rope, and started playing drawing a crowd.  The rent-a-cop sarcastically asked her if she saw the rope, and she said it was roped off for her recital.  The rent-a-cop got the manager of the piano department, who saw the crowd and said she was right.
• A woman activist mother took on the city to light up a major playground so children could play safely after dark long before women were allowed to be politically active.  The city said no way it was too expensive but nevertheless she persisted.  And won.  Her manchild could recite the killowats needed to just turn the lights on, and the kWhs to keep them on.   

City Park Lighting

 Lighting city parkways is critical for the people using the park; however it can be harmful to the fish, wildlife, and vegetation that make the park attractive to those users.  Modern LED lighting can be directed to specifically light certain areas and avoid spillover to other areas.  Modern auto headlights can light the lane ahead of the vehicle without spillover to an adjacent oncoming lane, and with just enough vertical spillover to illuminate overhead reflective signs.  Any lighting design for a city park should be used to control usage to public use areas of the park.  An additional virtue of this kind of lighting plan is that any person not in the lighted areas could be considered suspicious and treated accordingly.

Personal Principle Management.

From Facebook:   How do you tell the difference between betraying your principles and learning new ones? 

 Principles are your guide for interactions with your chosen society which is a pretty small group.  Your monkeysphere, if you will, whose names or at least faces you know well and consider to be important influences  As your society adjusts its mores, and it does as it collectively learns to coexist with the rest of the "right thinking" people you will probably have to reexamine your principles to conform or lead your chosen society.

 As  an example suppose your principles support the "Me Too" movement, but your monkeysphere is essentially tenured academics.  Is there an exception for long term apparantly consentual relationships between academics of unequal power?  An advisor and a student, an adminstrator and a professor, or other equivalent situations?  As you reexamine your principles do you differentiate between long term apparantly consual relationships and short term adventures? Does the power relationship change anything? If so how much power difference is the red line? Does the fact that all are highly intelligent, highly socialized people matter?  Assuming your examined principles are still out of line with monkeysphere, do you adjust them to conform or try to lead the monkeysphere to the correct principles as you see them?

The Two Bums

Nyah Wynne

24 mins · 

The Two Bums

The bum on the rods is hunted down
as an enemy of mankind
The other is driven around to his club, 
is feted, wined and dined

And they who curse the bum on the rods
as the essence of all that's bad
Will greet the other with a willing smile
and extend a hand so glad

The bum on the rods is a social flea
who gets an occassional bite
The bum on the plush is a social leech,
bloodsucking day and night

The bum on the rods is a load so light
that his weight we scarcely feel
But it takes the labour of dozens of folks
to furnish the other a meal

As long as we sanction the bum on the plush
the other will always be there
But rid ourselves of the bum on the plush
and the other will dissappear

Then make an intelligent organised kick
get rid of the weights that crush
Dont worry about the bum on the rods
get rid of the bum on the plush

On Nounig

http://www.shakesville.com/2009/01/nouning-considered-harmful.html

Customs Discussion: Beyond This Horizon, RAH

To believe you can live free of your cultural matrix is one of the easiest fallacies and has some of the worst consequences. You are part of your group whether you like it or not, and you are bound by its customs.

Don't belittle customs.  It is easier to change Mendelian characteristics than to change customs.   If you try to ignore them, they bind you when you least expect it.

Don't break them--avoid them.  Take them into your considerations, examine how they work, and make them serve you.

Claude Morden, Beyond This Horizon, Chapter 15 147 NAL, Robert A. Heinlein.  

You Asked, She Said "No," Now What?

 The first thing you need to internalize is that you are just another dick in that small majority of the population that has one.  The next thing you need to understand is that she is definitely not interested in your dick contrary to all that you have been told by your locker room buds, and most of your male mentors.  So forget the dick pics and anything else that focuses on sexuality.  She is not interested.  

  The one thing in your favor is that she is a human mammal and therefore interested in sexual activity of some sort, provided that the mating dance is conducted in a way that she finds interesting.  Your problem is that most of the traditional mating dances are no longer relevant to many women's interests, require resources that most men these days don't have, and/or stink of patriarchy which most women have learned only gets them fucked.

 The key word in the previous paragraph is "human" and by focusing on human needs for respect, good relationships, companionship, common interests, and old fashioned clean fun, you might just be able to create a mating dance that will work within your means.  It is by no means a sure thing, some women have opted to avoid the mating dance floor and found other ways to satisfy their mammalian urges, but in the worst case you have helped satisfy your own human needs for companionship, and/or good clean fun.

 The mating dances fall roughly into three categories:

 Hookups.  Not much dancing here.  Ranging from on-line hookup sites to alcohol lubricated parties with trusted groups.  The object is one time sexual gratification and negotiations generally revolve around types of sex and consent issues.  Note that the male partner's needs are irrelevant in the negotiations you might as well realize that any dick will do.  It is probably a sexist assumption but the gratification needs of the female are the only important part of the dance.  It is generally accepted that no relationship status is generated by the sexual activity even if the results were wonderful.  At best a future hookup might be negotiated. 


 Casual relationship building.  The dance here is to create a friendship that allows frequent interaction in a variety of situations up to sharing a residence.  Sexual activity is normally one of the interactions included in the mix but it is generally assumed that monogamy is not expected or even desireable.  Each partner is expected to provide a share of the common expenses, although strictly equal sharing is usually modified by unequal opportunities for women.  But the man's unequal share carries with it no special privileges. This is the most difficult dance for most men, as the paternalist ownership issues are hard to shake and are a major turn off for many women.  

 Long term commitment building usually involving shared resources and possibly reproduction.  The paternalistic variety of this dance is well known and there are women that know it well and have ways to use it to their advantage.  The non-paternalistic variety is becoming more common as men learn that it is the only way for the average man to create a household with shared long term plans and stability.  The first step in this dance is to recognise that the partner has herm own goals, capabilities, and resources that must be an integral part of the dance.  Traditional gender roles in these relationships are normally ignored in particular when the female partner has a full time job which is some cases is better paid than the male partner. Sometimes this requires recognition that the female partner must have the lead. A difficult step for many men to learn.  

  The incel phenomenon will only get worse as women indoctrinated into the patriarchal traditions discover that the Patriarchal mating dance is generally a losing proposition for women and they have many other options now that control over fertility is safe and reliable. 

 

UBI Transition Issues

 Transitioning to UBI could be as simple as transferring all welfare funding into the Social Security system along with the people administering welfare programs and providing social security benefits to all adults.  A reasonable monthly stipend could be determined, and the minimum Social Security taxes increased to cover the cost.  Employed people would pay a percentage over the minimum as now with no cap which would be placed in the trust fund for retirement benefits based on the 35 highest paid years earnings paid in addition to the UBI.

 The gig economy will ease the transition for all including the elderly who didn't earn enough to provide for non-essentials, and the UBI would eliminate most of the exploitation currently associated with gig work since gig work would truly be optional and employers would have to make working conditions and compensation good enough to clear the market needs.  

Dealing With "Isms"

It is a bad sign when the people of a country stop identifying themselves with the country and start identifying with a group.  A racial group.  Or a language.  Or anything, as long as it isn't the whole population.  Friday Baldwin in Friday. Robert A. Heinlein. 1982.

One of the unfortunate features of social media is that people are sorted out into groups based on one "ism" or another, usually on the basis of what they are against rather that what they are for.  Feminism for example has a package of male behaviors that they rebel against, Paternalism, privilege, Bro networks, sexism, (as defined by feminists) and others.   Many of these are justified, but men are judged by gender rather than whether they actually exhibit any of these behaviors. 

 Once an "ism" gains traction it generally fractionates into groups with agendas that are more important than the overall ideals of the nominally fundamental "ism."  In a few cases a charismatic leader can unify the groups under a larger tent and become a political or socially potent movement.  Charasmatic leaders generally are short lived, frequently literally, and their movement fractures once again into narrow interest groups.

 The most important way of dealing with isms is not to get sucked up into one.  The customs of your ism become a part of your cultural matrix.  

To believe you can live free of your cultural matrix is one of the easiest fallacies and has some of the worst consequences. You are part of your group whether you like it or not, and you are bound by its customs.

Don't belittle customs.  It is easier to change Mendelian characteristics than to change customs.   If you try to ignore them, they bind you when you least expect it.

Don't break them--avoid them.  Take them into your considerations, examine how they work, and make them serve you.

Claude Morden, Beyond This Horizon, Chapter 15, p 147 NAL, Robert A. Heinlein.  

 While I am an ally and active supporter of many isms, I am very selective in how I do so, and am very careful to avoid making the cultural matrix of the ism part of my thinking and behavior.  

 I was brought up by strong, independent women to believe that women were just as capable as men at anything they chose to do, and therefore chose to consider only such women as possible mates.  One would think that Feminism would therefore be a natural cultural matrix for me, but none of the strong, independent women I knew would have anything to do with Feminism as they were too involved in their own ventures to have any interest. I chose to do all that I could to support their ventures, at a high cost due to the cultural matrix of the Paternalistic culture I was part of as a child, and opposition from the cultural matrix of the feminists.  I expected the Paternalist opposition, and knew how to deal with it, the Feminists were a surprise. 
https://jcarlinbl.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-i-am-not-feminist.html