I am Ann Tompkins - an 85 year old woman who was one of the few Americans to live and participate in China's Cultural Revolution in the late 60's, have an FBI file over 1,000 pages long and sailed around Cape Horn on a wooden schooner at the age of 7! Ask me Anything!

AnnTompkins · 5時間前

Yeah, but like what are these similarities that supposedly only they share? If it's just "people believe in it and not this thing that I think is super-rational and empirical" then you're just doing the same thing, defeating the point of the centrist ivory tower you're trying to erect for yourself. It sounds like you're saying "everything ideological and extreme is bad" which I'm sorry to say is a very trivial thing to say.

It's a trivial thing to say, but an important thing to point out--especially when an ideology is being exploited. I listed many ideologies, and multiple things they shared when the ideologies began to be used for terrible purposes; you chose to make it about PC culture and CR exclusively, that's not the whole argument, in fact the argument went through numerous ideologies outside of PC culture then rounded back to illustrate the things PC culture is doing that is troubling--the biggest few are Kafka arguments, broad (Almost nonsensical) labels that are easily applied, using institutional power to silence discussion (Closing the marketplace of ideas) and distilling very complex situations down to ideological precepts that easily define good and bad for people. And more insidiously which ascribe intent simply based on the outcome of a situation and not the evidence actions you actually took. For example; if you disagree with Anti-American Committee, the intent of your resistance is to promote Anti-American ideals, and you must be a Communist. Regardless of if your resistance to the Anti-American activities was based on the Constitution itself, and your intent, through your actions, clearly denotes you were actually promoting American ideals and the Committee was actually against them.

These are all things PC culture is beginning to display--these are all things those other ideologies have displayed at the darkest of times. These things can exist apart from ideologies, too; but the thing that makes them troubling within an ideology is the mass group-think they facilitate. The biggest though is the desire to shut down discussion, that, by far, is the most troubling aspect of all this--it was troubling when the right wing wished to do it to 'defend religion' or 'the children', it is troubling now.

That doesn't make any sense. The "essay" you posted is so hard to read that I'm wondering why you're even bothering to use this unwieldy term. The only "pathology" here is using intentionally obscure terms to make understanding your argument harder. Admitting guilt to a crime you didn't commit has been a repressive tactic for centuries and yes it's very bad. It however is not at all similar to someone calling you a misogynist on the internet.

You keep attempting to cite being called a misogynist (I guess it's a label that has been effective for you in the past?), but I never said I was called one. I used misogyny as one example--as well as sinner, counter-revolutionary and Communist (All examples of labels, depending on time periods, which were used). It's interesting to me you keep focusing on misogyny.

But the "essay" was merely pointing out where the term comes from. Pathology is used correctly in the sentence. The reason the term is used is because it illustrates a very specific method that many ideologies use in order to incriminate someone, or make it so their arguments are seen as contrary to something a PART of the ideology might represent, but is not at issue. You're right, this tactic is used in other forms (And has been throughout history); incriminating questions, and other logical traps where no matter how you answer you sound guilty. But the "Kafka trap" points to a very specific version, hence it was used.

I went onto to explain what the Kafka trap was though, and only cited it AS a Kafka trap so I wouldn't have to explain it over and over (I was creating a short hand to make the post shorter, so people could easily reference something I was going to reference below). So even if you don't agree with the phrase being used, the argument is a red herring; I clearly explained what I meant--it is a situation where arguing against a subject engenders you with guilt. Again, if Catholicism represents being against sin, if you argue against any part of Catholicism you are a sinner. (Or, since you like misogyny so much--it would be like for Title IX kangaroo courts for sexual assaults under the ideological banner of Feminism, and if you argue that actual courts should be used so due process can be protected, then you're against equality, because Feminism represents equality. ) Again, it's an old tactic; it's well known and I explained it clearly, you're choosing to focus on a short hand technique that let me add Kafka, rather than a long explanation multiple times in the paragraphs as if its odd. No, I just didn't want to explain it every time I referred back to the technique (Pretty simple, not sure why you're having trouble figuring out why I did it.)

Yes but none of those methods are murder or torture like it was during the Inquisition or Cultural Revolution, are they? You're just associating this one negative thing with this other thing you don't like, there isn't actually anything similar. This is what we call false equivalence

I was very clear the scope was not the same; I even specifically cited the start of the CR, not when it was torturing and hurting people. You've created a straw man, and then said that straw man is a false equivalence. I said there are some troubling similarities with the way things are headed. This would be like me stating 'the colors in this portrait remind me of a Rembrandt' and you Guffawing and saying "THAT ISN'T A REMBRANDT!"

Well, okay, but I never said it was. I said some of the aspects were the same, and some of the things that are happening are troubling. Your argument here, again, is a straw man, the false equivalence stems from your straw man, not my argument.

Why bring up "political correctness" in a thread which had absolutely no relevance to it if you don't think they share some essence? I think it's a very intellectually dishonest thing to do. Just admit you made a ridiculous comparison and then made another ridiculous one because you wanted to make an alarmist argument. What made the Cultural Revolution so awful was the horrible waste of human life and intellectual achievement, it had nothing to do with banning people off of a private social network nor calling you a misogynist on the internet - I find it despicable that you'd even make that connection and it is a direct insult to ancestors like mine who took a bullet for their beliefs.

Because silencing discussion is usually the start of a bad road. It is one characteristic of a troubling pattern--this does not make the whole thing the same. Again, you created a straw man, and you're wondering why the pieces don't fit. You created a comparison to make, and now want me to admit I did. No. I won't, because I clearly didn't. I'm so sorry if you're upset I called you out on your terrible reading comprehension and am holding you to account for it, but the posts are clearly written, many people read the same thing you did and walked away with a completely different understanding. You're one of the few that had this asinine interpretation and now want to know why it's not a 1:1 comparison.

And wow, you're going for an emotional argument here? LOL. "It's despicable because it hurts my beliefs". Man, no wonder this is all striking close to home for you. Be an adult, argue on points as they are presented, and counter with rational points of evidence, empirical examples of your own--not about how it hurts you 'feelings' because someone else went through something and gosh darn it emotions matter!

I'm sorry if this damages your budding persecution complex but having a safe space for sexual minorities such as myself will never be like having your entire family be extinguished in a violent upheaval. Banning someone off of Twitter because they tweet inane shit to women over videogames....... What you're doing here is not only intellectually bereft of merit, it's flagrant manipulation of people's emotions to spread your own stupid rhetoric about things you barely understand. Your posts aren't just bad, they're reprehensible.

Dark roads start somewhere. People need to resist bad ideologies early, because once they have institutional power it's too late, usually. And that was the whole reason for the post wasn't it? And what you missed through your straw man. I was comparing what happens when an ideology that has similar qualities is allowed to advance, radicalize further and gain institutional power (I was NOT comparing ideologies at similar stages and scopes). I was stating that is why it is people duties to check things like this early, to keep discussion open and not let it be silenced in the name of 'safe spaces' or because certain people believe 'it's not enough to make a fuss over' because 'it's only video games' (I guess you're looking through my post history now? I never brought up video games).

But here we are at last. You're losing this argument, so you've stopped arguing based on evidence or examples and your attempting to label now. My posts are reprehensible; they are 'offensive' to you. It hurts your feelings because of X or Y emotional label and weak emotional correlation to Z thing. The last bastion of someone with no points, who is angry because someone won't Kowtow to your righteous indignation! You need to get over "I'm offended" as an argument tactic, grow up. You being offended means nothing, it means less than nothing, and half the reason PC culture has grown as cancerous as it has is because well meaning people have allowed it to mean more than that, and people have taken advantage.

AnnTompkins · 6時間前

And the conclusion you drew from that was not that all human beings are prone to terrible biases and social effects but that Mao would think "political correctness" was a totally sweet thing. You didn't discover any shared traits, nor is having beliefs and ideologies incompatible with "empirical evidence" and "rational decision making."

I listed a bunch of shared traits later on in the post, and in subsequent posts. But yes, I even stated in following posts that ideologies prey on natural biases within humans, that what I was discussing was when ideologies begin to be troubling. You're attempting to say 'this one thing is not like the sum total of parts of another, so your argument is wrong'--when the argument illustrated many different parts.

I don't know what it has to do with Kafka, saying it was solidified in an essay doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't really seem that important either.

Here is the link to the small essay, you could have googled it. It's based off of Kafka's book "The Trial", where the discussion/trial itself is set up to make the party guilty, rather than discern it. When I talk about a pathology here, I'm talking about setting up language so the only result of any discussion can be to admit your guilt. That even arguing against the ideology, is to admit guilt and thus warrant retaliation from the side you're arguing against.

If you're arguing against Catholicism then what does it matter if the priest thinks you're a sinner? You don't think sins are real in the first place.

How were you going to ignore the priests view if the Catholic Church was in charge of all the institutions in your area and could send armed men to harm you? Which at a time, the Catholic Church had that power for many people. What While PC culture is no where near that severe, what I find troubling among PC culture is their ability to no platform and use institutional power in order to apply their ideology; people are becoming scared to voice a variety of political views on campus for fear of PC culture, THAT is what is troubling (White privilege is an ASPECT of the entire movement. This is why my post included many other ideologies that used these tactics outside of the PC movement--you've only cited PC movement part of the post, I guess, because it strikes close to home?) Again, as I said numerous times, it is not any one aspect of the ideology that is troubling, it is all the aspects currently working in concert right now on campuses. Part of that right now is people who are disagreeing are being banished from speaking, having Title IX's filed against them and a host of other very real methods of using power to enforce the ideology.

The Catholic Comparison was a historical one to when the Catholic religion had various powers it doesn't have today. It's the same reason I brought up McCarthy, even though the Anti-American activities often only held people in contempt, they held a lot of power over various institutions which caused black listing and other terrible effects--it's this power, combined with the other aspects, which creates a witch hunt. No one aspect of PC culture is like the CR on it's own, white privilege is a concept Mao would like, but it is not in itself troubling--how it is being used today on many campuses IS troubling.

It's not "Kafka-Trapping" to say calling someone a misogynist is equatable to the "thing" Mao killed people with? I'm very fond of political correctness, apparently me and Mao have something in common. This is exactly like what happened to Gregor Samsa.

I didn't say it was equitable. A lot of your angst seems to be terrible reading comprehension on your part, making assumptions about my post that were not in there and creating straw men from those assumptions to argue against. The severity between Mao and PC culture is obviously very different. Someone who enjoys PC culture might be nothing like someone who prosecuted the Cultural Revolution--but if they also believe in no platforming people, using institutional power to silence dissent, and labeling people? Then they are starting to show troubling similarities (But that still doesn't make them equitable in degree or scope, and I never said they would end up that way.)

And no, what I'm doing is not Kafka-trapping. Kafka-trapping would be me saying "if you disagree with me on this, then you are like Mao." I said white privilege is something Mao would enjoy, but I didn't say if you argue with me you're proving that; in fact I've been debating you in good faith without accusing YOU of anything but terrible reading comprehension, this is the fundamental opposite of using a Kafka trap in order to make my ideological position unassailable.

The whole recent PC movement has very troubling similarities with the cultural revolution; or at least the rhetoric which began it.

The start of of the CR having similarities with the PC movement does not mean these things were the same, that is a straw man of your own making. They share some qualities, some of those qualities when viewed together are troubling.

My argument is that your posts are bad. If it's too vague then allow me to be unambiguous: your posts are bad.

Well, my argument now is your reading comprehension is terrible; and you create straw men to fill in the gaps. You probably shouldn't do that. I hope that is clearly understood.

AnnTompkins · 7時間前

Well, the optimist wants to believe most of these folks have the best of intentions. They genuinely want to help people, and are driven by very real problems with race and gender in the world. However, they don't have the time, or drive/will to really explore the extremely complex problems in a method which would yield results--and so surrendering to an ideology that makes them FEEL better about the problem, works for them. And as I said above, people will give up a lot to feel comfortable and secure in their beliefs, to have answers to tough questions that frighten them. No one enjoys 'living in doubt', if an ideology can explain something? Most people will jump on it; even if it only has a mild correlation to reality. (It's why we believed bad crops could be explained by gods be angry at us--at least it made things seem reasonable, it didn't 'feel' completely random. Unfortunately, when people come to believe something like that, they stop looking for real answers as to the why of things, and that's how these ideologies, often built off of flimsy correlations without any evidence of causal relationships, end up slowing down progress.)

But the pessimist in me thinks the same you do, especially about the 'demagogues' who are using this whole movement to their advantage. The way I've seen 'wrong thinking' minorities dejected by the most zealous ideological adherents of PC culture is truly disturbing. Even recently, when Caitlyn Jenner said she was a republican? Some of the same people who advocated it should be illegal to use improper pronouns for her attempted to revoke her status 'as a woman'. Time and time again I've seen it is less about actually protecting minorities and vulnerable people, and more about gaining an almost unassailable ideological position by saying 'we're the vanguard protecting these poor, vulnerable people'.

It really is no different (And no less patronizing) then the right wings 'think of the children' campaigns; where they needed more power over everyone, more ability to censor things because they were protecting children! And if you argued against them, you were essentially arguing FOR harming children. (Just now if you argue against the ideologies, you're arguing for racism, or you arguing to hate women ect).

And as you said, it all leads to broad generalizations, which are more about allowing everyone to be 'on the same page' ideologically, rather than judging reality by the empirical evidence they observe. And it leads to all kinds of messes.

AnnTompkins · 7時間前

You've conflated catholicism, communism, and fascism with "feelings towards things>>empirical evidence" in what is a long and unlettered rant with no sources or even really any reasoning.

Not what I said at all; I said all those ideologies, when they've begun displaying extremely bad qualities, it was a shared trait among them--where the belief in the ideology replaced empirical evidence and rational decision making.

I also have no idea what Kafka has to do with anything nor why you can't see the irony in criticizing McCarthy-era politics when you're using the same playbook of making vague associations.

1.) Kafka-Trapping is a linguistic pathology coined from Kafka's novels and solidified in an essay by Eric Raymond. It essentially is a method of quickly labeling critics in order to attack them over the argument, that denial of the person's ideological argument, proves you are in opposition to some noble goal of the argument (And thus must be guilty of what the ideology is opposing). To argue against Catholicism is to argue against God, and argue for sin--thus you are a sinner if you question a priest. (Or to argue against Feminism, is to argue against helping women and thus you must be a misogynist)

2.) There is no irony, extremism comes from both sides of the coin--this is not a right or left issue. Comparing my post to McCarthyism, which was based on targeting specific adherents to an ideology, where I was critiquing ideologies IN GENERAL, and included multiple ideologies from a broad spectrum is fairly ridiculous, and nothing at about it is "ironic".

I think what I find most annoying is your pretentiousness, you're somehow intimately familiar with the specifics of Mao's thoughts even though you have nothing to show for it.

You've made an entire post with no arguments, simply vague assertions, and accuse me of doing the same. Are you sure you're not projecting the pretentiousness you're seeing?

What a dreadful thread this is.

Well, it certainly became more so with this post.

AnnTompkins · 10時間前

Creating a throwaway to read my post history? lol. Or are you just a fan? As I said, your 'description of reality' states Obama's children have less 'privilege' than children in Appalachia with no running water (Totally describes the empirical reality of things). Electrons exist in a wave function before being measured, which means they potentially exist anywhere along that wave function before it is measured (Which is what my post said) and the economics was about what makes something needless animal abuse and what makes it a gainful activity protected by the overarching principle behind perusing prosperity. (The post was discussing why lawmakers craft laws about animal insemination, and allow it)

If you want to debate any of these, go on, rather than straw manning them.

MaximilioNeo · 17時間前

Exactly, I was the OP above. Language is like a program; it has certain patterns in it that can manipulate behavior. Certain people among us are very good at this manipulation, and can use otherwise innocuous ideologies to do so, making them increasingly dogmatic until they work functionally like a kind of brain harness/blinder system (Like you'd put on a horse to keep their vision narrow).

The truth is, ideologies are really the bane of rational thought when they grow powerful. It's essentially a method for people to distill things down to simpler observational rules (Biases) they 'trust', in order to examine their lives ; it's why religions are ideologies. Just like corrupt Popes could exploit Catholicism, or Mao could exploit the CR--PC culture is being subverted to be used by those in power. This, throughout history, almost always leads to a dark place--because in order to achieve this control, the first thing that must die is rational thought and skepticism. (Which much of humanity is comfortable with, most people would rather be comfortable than be skeptical and in doubt.)

It's by far the most troubling aspect of the PC movement for me, how it is shutting down discussion and displaying a lot of linguistic signs of a very dogmatic ideology. Again, countless times in history this kind of language disease has lead to very dark places.

MaximilioNeo · 17時間前

It wasn't a historical comparison, it was comparing the linguistic patterns within ideological dogma. Kafka traps, simple dichotomies, broad and easy to apply labels (Which are powerful enough to ascribe intent with no evidence, IE if a privilidged white person dislikes a black person, it MUST be racism; the label ensures that it can be boiled down to that), subversion of key aspects of language. The history of how it started are different, but how ideologies function as a kind of language cancer are quite similar. I could (And did) make this comparison to various aspects of the reformation, or even to the McCarthy era.

MaximilioNeo · 17時間前

Hey that's me! Woot, I ended up on KiA!

AnnTompkins · 18時間前

How does being wealthy make someone bad? The Cultural Revolution began as simply identifying inequality as well. And it's not so much about the term white privilege (The original concept of the term isn't bad), it's how it is being USED within the broader movement. Isolating a specific term is not going to give you the full picture--again, it's how it's being used. Using it as a conversation disabler, in order to no platform people is very troubling, and that has been happening on campuses.

AnnTompkins · 20時間前

Yep, distilling intent down to something a demagogue in the ideology can use quickly and efficiently to unify the adherents is a big red flag. Social interactions are enormously complex, whenever you can whittle one down to two variables? Is troubling. Especially because we've seen the regressive effects it can have on a society; like religion claiming everything that's bad is because of X evil force influencing Y good people, which slows down progress in actually looking for the correct answers to why things happen.

Seeing this spread out into the world, and distilling race relations down to these simple interactions is a huge problem. Mainly because there are still issues with racism, and we are never going to solve them if the interaction can be distilled down to something comically simple as "he must just not like X type of people, and that explains all of his actions".

AnnTompkins · 20時間前

Haha, well, yeah, of course stupid people are going to be in college too. I was just commenting not all college kids are stupid (Not even all the ones who believe in this nonsense; it's just very easy for humans to get trapped in ideological zealotry, unfortunately it's been a bane of our species.)

But yeah, I've uhh, met some college kids who were not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

AnnTompkins · 20時間前

I didn't mention any political candidate (Curious why I would toss Trump out there, I was discussing ideologies). If you want me to say right wing ideologies share these patterns, especially religions? Sure. Absolutely. And I've spent years arguing against right wing control over various mediums...Its now terrifying me that 'my side' is displaying the same linguistic patterns. And throughout history, I know the left is as capable as using them as the right, which is what this post is about.

But in the end? Yes, ideology is the real enemy. Ideology is where rational thought goes to die. Believing in an ideology is essentially saying 'I don't need to think about this, someone else wrote the rules down for me'. From the left or right, it's terrible. But Trump isn't no platforming people in universities, and universities have always been the originator of progressive movements--if people can't talk there, it's frightening, because again, it's where progress usually comes from.

AnnTompkins · 20時間前

Well, yeah, I agree with that. Just like because Mao labelled wealthy people and killed them, doesn't mean us fighting wealth inequality is a 'bad' thing. It's not about any one part of what happened--the PC movement is only troubling when you look at the WHOLE thing, no platforming, Kafka arguments, distilling complex social interactions down to race (Argue with a black co-worker? Must be racism, can't be because you disagreed) ect. The concept certain people MIGHT have it easier? That's just a decent discussion point. (Though I would argue it is overly broad from a taxonomic perspective, but yeah, it's certain honest from the broadest view.)

AnnTompkins · 20時間前

Describing someone as wealthy doesn't make them bad, either. Does it? It's not any ONE part of what is going on, it's not just white privileged, it's how that taxonomy is being used by the greater PC movement.

For example, just because Mao abused the concept of the Bourgeoisie, or those with 'wealth privilege', doesn't mean we in the U.S. shouldn't identify those with extreme wealth and try to prevent wealth inequality, does it? Yet if I went around saying that wealthy people shouldn't be able to talk, at all, shouldn't be able to debate my labels, and begin using that taxonomy to suppress their ability to enter discourse? Then I'd be entering the territory that Mao did.

Right now, I said in the OP that things are troubling because of how the PC movement is AROUND the concept of privilege, no platforming, safe spaces, thinking it is okay to disrupt or even attack speech. In addition, using Kafka traps to now defend the ideology to further the above discussion limiters. THOSE are bad when used with an overly broad label like white privilege--the actual identification of privilege itself might be fairly innocuous (Or even good), it's how the ideology uses it that can be bad. Right now, as discourse is being limited? We are going in the wrong direction with it.

AnnTompkins · 20時間前

No, I assure you, I understand it. I'm think you don't fundamentally understand the Cultural Revolution, and why I'm saying it was close from a linguistic perspective. The same methods of defending the ideology, of 'no platforming' those who critique it, and of using Kafka traps to solidify it and defend it? Are all present.

In these ideologies, labels often start out fairly innocuous, before Mao really came to power, the discussion really was just about identifying those with a lot of wealth and helping out poor people (Something everyone can get behind.) However, when it turned into something worse is when Kafka like linguistic traps began popping up in order silence critics--those linguistic changes indicate something far darker.

The issue isn't with just the label, it's with no platforming going on in colleges, in stating that people who argue against can be identified as privileged (Kafka), that there isn't a more nuanced layer of classification beyond privilege (Overly broad, flexible taxonomy in order to allow for Kafka traps)---it is ALL these things that are troubling, not any one thing. The concept of privilege 'in itself' isn't bad, it is how it is used in the greater ideology.

Just like identifying the Bourgeoisie or the wealthy, in order to tackle wealth inequality isn't, by itself, a bad thing. It's when it's combined with the other aspects of the ideology that it becomes something darker. Right now, the label is growing more broad, and already arguing against it gets a very specific kind of Kafka-like response that. But let me ask you this.

Who is more privileged. A white male born in an Appalachian town with no running water or electricity, or President Obama's two lovely daughters? Now, someone reasonable can see this is most likely a situation that supersedes the ideology, and admit it is an exception to a rule. The troubling thing for me is many can't, and will using the little language traps I described above to prevent any discourse surrounding various examples and issues. That shows a more dogmatic outlook on the ideology, and that is when things tend to need to calm down a little.

AnnTompkins · 21時間前

I'm not down voting, I'm the OP. They are different, absolutely. I said they had troubling similarities, but one is obviously more progressed and extreme. So yes, different.

My point was, at its origins, the cultural revolution began in the same way--it was merely a people's movement pointing out, in some cases, legitimate cases of privilege and wealth and inequality. This isn't a bad thing. However, sometimes what happens is this begins to build into something else, where the ideology becomes perpetuated for the power of a few, rather than the core beliefs of the ideology, that is when they tend to grow cancerous. (Especially when it begins distilling down complex social structures into easy to digest dichotomies so a demagogue can control things. Swapping people's intent is a big thing)

The troubling part is when the ideology begins to restrict counter arguments to itself, which the PC movement has begun to do with no platforming, safe spaces and a slew of other practices; while also distilling motivations down to something easily explained by their ideological dichotomy. This is troubling, especially when combined with Kafka linguistic traps to defend the ideology, because that shows a movement toward something quite a bit darker.

But for sure, these movements always start out pretty genuine, with an almost needed labeling system. The point is, once you've changed the language to remove the checks behind labeling hatred (IE Racism=Power+Bigotry), and once you've made people comfortable with accepting and being labelled, and with that label being able to describe intent of people? It becomes VERY easy for demagogues to use the ideology to promote themselves and silence their critics. And that's what I was discussing, the whole concept of no-platforming people and closing down discourse, distilling down complex phenomenon into purely racial contexts in order to fit within the ideology, is a very troubling trend that illustrates the PC movement is moving toward something quite a bit darker.

AnnTompkins · 21時間前

I don't think you understand the concept of Bourgeois privilege or what it entails. Saying someone is privileged as part of the capitalist system is not a label, it's the truth. Most Bourgeois people will unconsciously defend the capitalist system, which makes conversations very difficult. The subconscious response for a privileged person in a given situation is to deny being privileged, and in the fight for the revolution, this is a huge block to progress when people fail to admit to the failings of the capitalist system, it becomes impossible to fix the flaws of global capitalism. It's why, brothers and sisters of the revolution, we may have to remove people who are too entrenched in the system! (And here is where he'd talk about killing people with X or Y trait that illustrated they had privilege, like being too educated, or not having rough enough hands) (I'm not sure if you were trying to parody Mao? And this post is a kind of satire troll, but bravo if so. This was Mao's kind of thinking down to the letter, even including the absolutism of his way being 'truth', heh. If you weren't, read on)

Anytime someone can talk about a social system, that groups Bill Gates, and a homeless vet who joined the military to escape a defunct Kentucky coal mine, and got his legs blown off and now pan handles on the street (White, male heterosexual privilege) as the same taxonomic entity (Both privileged) and say 'its the truth'--is someone so indoctrinated that you're right, ain't nobody got time for that. You've essentially painted a bunch of people with a massive brush for sharing superficial qualities. If this were done in reverse, it would be called racism, xenophobia, bigotry. You feel righteous though because the language behind these terms have been subverted (Specifically to allow you to indulge within your ideology without guilt)...Racism is now prejudice+power, for example. (And again, think of the absurdity. Obama's daughters are LESS privileged because they are black+Female than a boy who will grow up in an Appalachia community with no running water or electricity. What?! And this system is 'truth' to you?)

Most privileged people usually unconsciously argue from a privileged position and this makes conversation very difficult. The primal response of a privileged person in a given situation is to deny being priviledged and in the fight for equality for minorities, this is a huge block to progress because when people fail to admit there is a certain flaw in the system, then it becomes impossible to fix that flaw. When confronted with privilege, people across all social spectra respond practically the same way. Everyone wants to be privileged but nobody wants to be seen as privileged, because there seems to be an element of accusation in it, it threatens your sense of acheivement and so on.

Just pointing this out, here is the Kafka trap I pointed out above. Here, let me quote it.

It's a very Kafka esque branding technique, if you are privileged and argue you aren't, it's only because you're afraid of admitting and losing it. Like if a Bourgeois in the cultural revolution argued against the methods, it's because he wants to keep his unjust wealth, or if he argued he wasn't a Bourgeois, it only proved he was because he was arguing against the revolutionaries!

How did I know this would be part of any rebuttal (How did I know YOUR rebuttal would contain this kind of rhetoric)? Because it's a linguistic trick. It's used in many ideologies in order to prevent any argument over the substance of the ideological view, and instead focus on the category the person in (IE X person is on the 'bad' team). "Heathens all sin, you can see this when they question good Christians about the nature of sin". You've made the presence of any argument itself as a means of identifying someone who is against a 'noble goal' of your ideology (And so is on the opposing, ignoble team), automatically subverting their argument not based on substantive grounds, but on ideological ones (I can label this person, because he's obviously a privileged person, and that's proven because he's arguing against privilege as a concept).

It's a very old technique, as I said. There is even a term for it. Yours isn't the first ideology to use it, you won't be the last. I compared the current PC movement to Mao because you share these qualities, not just because of the term 'white privilege'. Mao would say "Many people have undeserved privileges which take away from the people, when you confront them, they may deny it and even argue about the revolution! But the revolution is good, the revolution is truth, and arguments against it prove a person must be an anti-revolutionary".

Listen, I'm not going to change your mind just because I predicted how you would argue, or defend your ideology (Though it should get you thinking)..But take a moment, understand language has certain patterns, the PC movement is displaying a lot of the patterns from the cultural revolution (No, not nearly as bad, but they are there). That doesn't make it 'as bad', nor does it even HAVE to be bad, but it is the first steps toward making it an unreasonable movement that can't discuss their ideas (No platforming is VERY troubling, so is distilling down complex intent to simplistic dichotomies, which is usually a sign some demagogues are using it to gain power--how about those elections!). And that is typically the first step toward closing down that market place of ideas; which IS bad. So take care, anyone who can universally tell you 'this is a truth', in anything to do with social sciences? Is usually lying. (Especially if, as I said, your truth groups Bill Gates and our legless, homeless Vet because they share a skin color and sex--it's such an obtuse grouping calling it a 'truth' should ring of absurdity.)

AnnTompkins · 21時間前

Words and phrases change, PC has taken on an almost ideological presence. But if you want to use a different name, call it intersectionality; and it's not surprising you use 'anti-racist' as a semantic correlation to 'anti-white' (IE if anyone complains about the logic behind my linguistic authoritarianism, they are fighting against Anti-Racism! Who would do that! Psst, probably evil RACISTS!). As Mao often did, when someone would call him on his ideological failings, he would cite it in the name of 'the revolution!", which would then correlate those questioning him were obviously counter-revolutionaries. (The U.S. did this to, with Communists. If you questioned the Anti-American Activities boards, the defense was they were promoting American virtue, and thus questioning them was proof you were most likely as Communist. It's a very old tactic ideologically tying something to something noble in order to prevent questions.)

Any time you label an entire group, and are able to assign a story to them (Weather its privilege, or "thug" for black people) it is bound to end up 1.) Not encompassing many of the subtler points for individuals within that group. 2.) Forming stereotypes that are clearly untrue, and based purely on anecdotal perceptions.

I'm not even sure why you remarked about stupid college kids. There is nothing 'stupid' about what's going on in colleges right now, it's troubling, not stupid. As someone who spent years on a college campus getting a Masters? I'd hardly be one to call anyone in college 'stupid' (I'm also liberal as all heck). But even the smartest people can be duped by an ideology, and EVERY human is subject to the ill effects of mob thinking, the moment you believe you're not? Is the moment you've probably been induced by an ideological mob.

Concernedmumthrow · 1日前

The older son didn't do that, though. Which is who I was discussing. The older son got labelled a misogynist in this thread--and the only information we have on him is he simply had a specific set of standards he wanted.

I said in the last paragraph that the younger son was rude--there is an element of tact involved when rejecting people based on your standards, and element of empathy which people should have. The younger son does need to work on that (No reason to be mean). But I didn't read anything about the older son that should lead anyone to believe he hates women....If he wants a woman who focuses on her body as much as he focuses on his (Which I assume is a great deal since the post said he dedicates his paychecks to clothes, and dedicates a lot of time to the gym), that's not a choice that makes him a 'bad person', or indicates he has a problem, or is a misogynist (Or even indicates the younger son is learning something bad from him).

The issue is the younger son's lack of empathy. Which sadly happens with a lot of popular kids. But trying to pin it on the older son? Just because he wants X Y or X in his partner? Seems very iffy to me, it seems outrageous he got labelled a misogynist for it.

AnnTompkins · 1日前

The whole concept of 'white privilege' is the exact type of ideological taxonomy Mao used to vilify people (Except he tended to use social status over ethnicity, but when you hear people discuss what 'whiteness' is, you realize that it's often used the same way in America). In fact, many of the terms Mao used for counter-revolutionaries roughly translate into the English concept 'privilege' or various forms or another. It is a kind of labeling system seen broadly in witch hunter scenarios, a flexible label that can single handily reduce someone's position in another person's eyes and reduce any arguments they make to being simply propaganda from people looking to protect their 'privilege' (Or ideology).

It's a very Kafka esque branding technique, if you are privileged and argue you aren't, it's only because you're afraid of admitting and losing it. Like if a Bourgeois in the cultural revolution argued against the methods, it's because he wants to keep his unjust wealth, or if he argued he wasn't a Bourgeois, it only proved he was because he was arguing against the revolutionaries! (And only a Bourgeois would do that). Or if a Communist in the U.S. argued during the McCarthy era, it's because he wanted to protect his subversive friends, and if he said he wasn't a Communist and was arguing because it was the right thing to do, it meant he obviously was a Communist because who else would argue with the very American Anti-American activities committee! It's a very old method to quickly side step rational critique by labeling the person, and having the label be set up so arguing against it proves it.

The whole recent PC movement has very troubling similarities with the cultural revolution; or at least the rhetoric which began it. Easy hatred for those perceived to be in power (Even if most of them aren't, they simply share a trait with those that are--like professors and political/business leaders both being educated, so obviously both are part of the same evil ruling class), a large label for those who seem to benefit from power (Even if most do not) and most of all (By far the most important) a scape goat for demagogues to blame difficult issues on. Something easy for the common person to digest, something easy to identify with and make out. (Really important when you're controlling a mob--you don't want to give the other person a chance to be a human, having a label that is quick to dispense and easy to ID makes it far easier for the mob to prevent the target from speaking.)

The point being that things like the cultural revolution rely on the market place of ideas being closed. "White privilege" is a concept Mao himself would have enjoyed a great deal, because it quickly distills a complex set of social issues down to 'this group is bad, don't discuss things with them' (Even if the rhetoric around it says people shouldn't feel bad about their privilege--the way it's used in conversation is almost always meant to disrupt and shut down the conversation, or make the observations of those with privileged less poignant, less empathetic). This is the problem with broad labels--in reality, some people were just bad, or willfully mislead others, 'white privilege' had nothing to do with it, it was based purely on ideological sympathies overruling empirical reality, which happens for every ideology; from Catholicism to Communism to Fascism (But this is another troubling similarity with the modern PC movement, that feelings towards things>>empirical evidence, which is a tactic Mao also liked to use, because it made it even easier to facilitate the above, where people can brush aside the empirical reality in order to defend their ideology, because it 'feels' right. And making people 'feel' good with righteous indignation is very easy, and a great way to manipulate a mob.).

Concernedmumthrow · 1日前

I'd be careful taking some of the advice that labels someone a misogynist because they have a certain set of sexual preferences. The only information that's been given about your older son is he's got high standards for a partner--that isn't a 100% bad thing (Even if it might appear on the surface shallow; fitness and body image can be a big part of people's lives, some people want a partner who shares that). And shaming him for having them doesn't seem like the best idea. If your daughter refused to date a man because he was too short, would she be a 'misandrist' (There has been a lot of advocacy recently about people being able to love who they choose, is attraction for a certain body type any different? Again, some of this might be shallow and the way they reject people might be overly hurtful, and that should be fixed. But the actual core of liking certain qualities isn't automatically a bad thing).

Policing physical sexual preferences sounds like a no win situation; if your son is really into keeping himself fit, and his body image/clothes are important to him, he's probably looking for a partner who feels the same. And as mentioned above; this lifestyle often requires a lot of dedication, if your partner doesn't like the gym and doesn't like to focus on fashion, it can breed a bad relationship, all for what? The appearance of being less shallow? That in itself is a form of shallowness, more concerned about the appearance of being a 'good, 'deep', person' than the emotions of those who will get hurt in a bad relationship). So shallowness can work in many directions here. Maybe there is more to your older son than what was said, but accepting the label that he hates women because he wants to be with a certain type that clearly shares his preferences for how he takes care of his body seems kind of outrageous.

Your other son was pretty rude, no doubt; there is some tact involved when choosing people to enter a relationship with. You can have standards and not hurt people, which is I think what should be focused on here--the fact that your younger son lacked tact, and was pretty mean. If your older son can maintain his standards, without being mean overtly, again, I don't think policing his choices is a good thing.

AnnTompkins · 1日前

The justifications were the EXACT same. Hitler believed the Jews were over-represented in positions of power (They actually were; but mainly, and ironically due to land holding laws). He believed there was a conspiracy by the Jews to exploit the common working class of Germany and siphon up all the wealth of the common German (In essence, he blamed the deflationary period from the Republics payments to France/Britain on the Jews). He then used the suppression of his speech by the Republic as evidence of this grand conspiracy.

Replace Jews above with bourgeois, and Hitler with Mao. The only difference is Mao didn't kill people based on religious/ethnic lines, but rather something far more ambiguous, whether or not someone was part of the 'bourgeois' (Which at points during the revolution met you were educated or 'privileged' and over 30 years old--some movies in China literally have plot points where people die because all the doctors at this time period were imprisoned for being part of the evil Bourgeois) This ambiguity, sadly, opened up the violence on far more people, often with mobs deciding who was part of the 'conspiracy' to make their life hard on the spot (Classic witch hunting behavior, we've seen it in Western states plenty, the U.S. was essentially doing a lesser version TO 'supposed' Communists during the McCarthy era.)

The worst part is, unlike the French Revolution, which brought about incredible changes in exchange for terrible human costs, the cultural revolution was something that took place AFTER the Communists already had power. It set society back decades, and destroyed without helping subvert power structures (Because, you know, they were already in charge). It was just a ploy to focus hatred and let Mao remove his enemies, and consolidate his power (Again, things we've seen before, from Stalin and Hitler--Mao's scale though was quite a bit larger.)

In essence the real difference between Hitler and Mao is how history writes about them. For decades Mao followers tried to control history, which is why there is ANY debate at all about this. It is only very recently that China's government has begun to even allow people to be critical of this period (As people have said, an entire genre over there is rising up talking about the periods and the collective hurt people experienced during it.) In any case, the cultural revolution and the Holocaust are evidence of what happens when mobs are given free reign to blame their troubles on those they perceive as 'privileged', whether due to their ethnic group or social status, the end is the same.

AnnTompkins · 1日前

I'm so glad this thread is here. I can't believe the answers here. Millions of people ended up dying due to Mao's insane power grabbing, hundreds of thousands a direct result of witch hunting and mob violence for perceived slights. I'm totally shocked at the casualness of the support seen throughout the AMA; not an ounce of remorse for the atrocities that happened (That are BOUND to happen when a leader encourages mob mentalities to rule)

I'm always so glad when Reddit is critical of other powers, like the U.S.'s imperialism, many people rightly take the U.S. to task over the lives lost, or they speak to the errors of Colonialism. Going through this AMA and not seeing (At first) any questioning of the sheer scope of the tragedy contained within the cultural revolution was shocking. (Again, we're talking a loss of life, when starvation and deaths from lack of doctors, government leaders, engineers, and other needed personnel because they were 'purged', in the millions, one of the worst losses of life and periods sustained human misery the planet has seen.)

GamerGateFan · 3日前

Exactly. If you look at the history of, say, modern doctors--they actually advocated a great deal for their standards to be legally binding. This was done specifically to prevent anyone snake oil salesmen from being called a doctor. It does have a few downsides, notably being that scrutiny tends to breed bureaucracy. However, the benefit is enormous; the fact that a doctor can engender trust simply due to the title he is given because people KNOW that title invites scrutiny from not only the state but a wide variety of authorities/organizations. (While it's always good advice to investigate your doctor regardless, the fact is, most of us tend to trust most doctors because of this, because the profession is surrounded by barriers which weed out illegitimacy.)

The sad thing is, people see journalists in that same way mainly due to how the journalists used the media to hype and publicize how stringent they are with holding 'their own' to account. The problem was, much of this was theater. They got the reputation of being a professional organization without the actual difficulties that come with it; the difficulties which would have impeded the 'blogger' revolution from being able to use the guise of journalism.

ikigaii · 4日前

Yeah, it's kind of an incredible lack of awareness. No wonder these people are so vulnerable to demagogues and snake oil salesmen.

ServetusM

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率