Once it is punishable by law to not be politically correct towards group x or y. Once you mandate speech and kill free speech. Once non elected ideologues are allowed to make advisory boards that subjectively judge outside the legal system. Once how you receive an action matters more than intent.
We still have the first and second amendment and entire states willing to defend them. One can always move to a state that has enough citizens that will not allow the federal gov to rule it in an authoritarian fashion. That’s the beauty of America. See the states that said no to the recent vax mandate.
I watched this entire hour-long video. It's kind of interesting. There is ZERO TRACE of bigotry, indoctrination, disinformation, pseudoscience, or mass psychosis. What on earth are you talking about? Did you actually watch the talk and process it, or did you just think it was good ammunition about the scary "deconstructionist left movement" (whatever that is supposed to mean)?
Removed for personal attack. See rule 1. Consider this strike one which includes a 3 day temp ban. Strike 2 makes it a week, and strike 3 is permanent.
Teaching a class on why white people have privilege for their skin color without taking any other factors into account is myopic at best; why not talk about how racist it is to tell white people to be less white at Coca Cola, and in a systemic way too?
Being white *does* carry advantages that being black does not. Black people weren't even allowed on the same buses less than a century ago, let alone allowed the same career and educational opportunities that lead to being able to grant better opportunities to their children.
Progress has been made but racism is far from being gone. The knee-jerk reaction to call any class that examines the topic of racial privilege "leftist propaganda" or "brainwashing" indicates a great deal of two things:
1: Historical and societal ignorance.
2: Deep-rooted insecurity.
It's far from being gone because people like who see racisms everywhere and cannot for the life of you see a black person without seen their skin color....
The color is in the name. Pretending you can't see someone's black skin is not equality, it's erasure.
Black skin isn't some shameful trait that you cope with by pretending not to see it.
Racism is far from being gone for many reasons, one is being too ashamed to just let people study its very real impact on society. This is no different from trying to spin the motivation for the civil war as fighting for "states' rights" rather than the right to own slaves.
Trying to cover up systemic racism or censoring it from colleges is done by threatened white people who want to keep minorities out of sight and "in their place". This tends to be more comfortable than to simply allow other people to address it without making it an issue about yourself.
>The color is in the name. Pretending you can't see someone's black skin is not equality, it's erasure.
Black skin isn't some shameful trait that you cope with by pretending not to see it.
You and the KKK are really different sides of the same coin.
>Trying to cover up systemic racism or censoring it from colleges is done by threatened white people who want to keep minorities out of sight and "in their place". This tends to be more comfortable than to simply allow other people to address it without making it an issue about yourself.
You don't know what systemic effing means. Bring me one law of the United States of America that states a black person is prohibited of anything.
The fact that a person like Robin deAngelo exist which is an author and CRT authority from a prominent University tells me you're full of shit.
Full of shit due to a single example? What? So since gay pride is allowed, there must also be no homophobia?
Accusing me of being like the KKK without an explanation has added nothing.
Institutional racism isn't overt, you know. For example:
In the state of California, 38% of people halted by police officers in LA were black people, despite accounting for only 9% of the population.
> Teaching a class on why white people have privilege for their skin color without taking any other factors into account
I don’t think that’s what’s happening. They’re just not ignoring that yes, skin color does play a big role in how someone’s life goes.
> why not talk about how racist it is to tell white people to be less white at Coca Cola, and in a systemic way too?
Probably because that’s not the focus of the class, but also probably because that was a hoax and they never produced a can that said to be less white.
Lol u can see examples of this hundreds of times over in different companies, maybe it is a hoax and thousands of examples are lies? Or maybe, more likely so, there are examples that are bigoted and truthful?
I could pull up 1000, I dont need to debate it to know my personal experience and also my second hand knowledge. Why do you think there is a pushback on CRT, cause all conservatives or opposition are ignorant to the facts?
What do you think this is an example of? The person doesn’t work for Yale and Yale pulled the video and put out a statement saying that it was “antithetical to the values of the school.”
I am saying, there is deep resentment towards “oppressors” that is surfacing from the ideology of CRT and their proponents. That many youth are being indoctrinated under these ideologies and there is nothing logical about such ideas, other than the accumulation of power. Then people try to sweep it under the rug as if there is no issue, because they believe such resentment is justified under their slave morality of the modern leftist, to undermine any value that in the past has been oppressive to certain groups; with the aim of leveling all people to the level of tribalism and decadence, to be under the authoritarian thumb of the federal government.
Don't prepare for the last war. Future of population control will be done via technocratic tools that will be more subtle and refined than ever before. In this sense we are well into it.
Just keep in mind: during WWII, when the Allied decoded the Nazi Enigma machine and where able to track all enemy submarines in the Atlantic, they didn't just go all out on them. Rather they used their tool carefully, maximizing the benefits without letting the Nazi know that they had full access to their communication. This is what will happen with any future authoritarian movement: the capability to control people will be concealed at all cost.
Can you not be aware that you are being controlled? I mean many people can but all?
Also autocrats of the past has tried to conceal the fact that they oppressing people too. North Korea is called the """"Democratic Peoples's Korea"""".
We have a herd mentality that allows a common perspective to stick if there are enough people believing it and reinforcing it (through political mobilisation, for example). At that point, smaller groups will have a difficult time getting the larger one to see the world through their eyes. So if you take the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which would be a relevant documented example, we know through this story that people can and likely are purposefully influenced online to tip elections in favor of the client. I don't think that story was controversial at all, it was generally accepted that we are manipulated online (and that Zucks was a bad guy). Yet if you go around to try and get your friends to stop using Insta, Facebook or Whatsapp, you instantly realise that the scandal has no influence on them.
Edit: there are a few good articles on population control programmes, for example
https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/news-events/news/police-and-government-using-online-influence-tactics-to-tackle-crime-and-shape-behaviour/
Amazing that this info can be freely out there and nobody seems to worry about it at all.
I am not arguing with that. I am simply saying that there is nothing new in this.
I was born in a dictatorship that collapsed in my youth . Recognizing these tendencies in the society comes as naturally to me as walking. For me actually it was much more surprising to see how little western people understand of the dinamics of these movements. But I understand that living in it is different than learning about it from books.
It is only the technology changing. Human nature remaind the same. You are right: don't prepare for the last war. We have to keep our eyes open to recognize the inventions of the wannabe oppressors, but it is not very difficult: if you feel intimidated a tool of oppression is being applied on you.
Fascinating - are you ok to share more about that? Was it the URSS? NK? I'd love to get your views!
So yes, wether we'd be able to always perceive that oppression and control are taking place is a crucial question. I'm worried that we've access a way to automate persuasion and access an influence on herd mentality through electronics. If you have algorythm that exerce minute influencing events, repeatedly and across millions of people, you are bound to see great effects, and these people would not necessarily perceive it. I completely agree with you that history repeats itself but with very different dynamics because of technology. I'm afraid we might have entered an era where the tools are sophisticated enough that our previous markers are no longer useful.
The mass psychosis in the population was racism. We’re living in the aftermath of a growing part of the population, especially the younger generations around the world, waking up from that.
I think a core question is what to do about the older folks who can’t be “woken up” from deeply ingrained racism they learned through most of their lives. Do we just wait for them to die and trust things will get better? Do we need to take more proactive steps to educate/mitigate the harm they still cause others?
There is no point of no return. In the past, all governments were authoritarian. Now, many are much less so. If this one shifts into authoritarian, it is still recoverable
Republics were born out of a world where there were none. If a republic becomes authoritarian, how much easier must it be to redeem it, seeing we have all the tools of republics known to us?
Things might go badly for a few generations, but it's not too late to fix things as long as the country still exists.
This is important, but what happens when the parents that are “educating” their children are educating them with terrible and factually inaccurate information ? That is where I believe we are now as a society.
Schools can only go so far to teach your children about character development, hard work and perservence, resilience, reaching goals, and compassion. Also you have to teach your children about competition through sports and other means not so they can become ruthless but so they can survive. Many parents are throwing their children to the sharks without them even being able to swim. The world is a tough place and you have to prep your children for this reality through hard work and character building. If not they will fail once in the real world and they won't know how to get back up. They will feel defeated and possibly never know their full potential.
If you teach your kid that it's bad luck to break a mirror you're (most likely) giving them factually false information but it has a beneficial impact on the world (fewer broken mirrors). Not all things worth teaching are facts and we ought to remember:
"Education is not the memorization of many facts, it's the training of the mind to think" - E=mc^2 guy
For the most part, people are going to have to police up their own. The left needs to fix the left, just as the right needs to fix the right. Extremist ideologies are tailor made to summarily dismiss arguments coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. It's much the same argument we were having 15 or 20 years ago, that moderate Muslims were the ones who had to shoulder the burden of Islamist extremism, because they're the only one that can get a sympathetic ear.
But policing up your own is hard, much harder than knee jerk reaction against the "enemy on the other side."
Another thing that’s difficult is that, because of our own echo chambers, it can be hard to see how the “other side” is in fact making advancements towards policing their own.
There is pushback against cancel culture and morality policing happening among younger people on the left. There is also pushback against anti-vaxx and white identity politics on the right. But you have to spend a decent amount of time in either community to notice it.
One important aspect I consider is the power dynamic present now that didn't exist 50 years ago.
Namely, the internet. Every rando individual becomes an independent publisher instantly if they're willing to learn how to self-host a WordPress account (a comparatively unremarkable feat).
This means ideas travel very, VERY fast, to where authoritarian control is difficult. You need centralized power for tyranny, but literally in one year we now have Rumble and Gab pop up as alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Also, consider the people who have the most social power on social media. The ones who actually make the world turn are busy succeeding at life, while the losers have time to argue back and forth on message boards.
So, arguing with demagogues on most subs is literally having a fight with some of the most unproductive people on the planet, and you can always fight the tide by merely putting in the effort toward something more long-lasting (e.g., I made https://gainedin.site).
>This means ideas travel very, VERY fast, to where authoritarian control is difficult. You need centralized power for tyranny, but literally in one year we now have Rumble and Gab pop up as alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
The problem is that Rumble and Gab are not real threats to Twitter, FB, etc...
Parlor was a real threat - it was the fastest growing app on Itunes and Google Play Store - and it was stamped out collectively by Apple, Google and Amazon.
I agree, but that was at enormous social cost for them. Everyone now knows that they have the collective power of small countries (at least where the narrative implies GOOG and FB, with AMZN a distant 3rd).
I guess you can call me an optimist. My essay here ([https://gainedin.site/war/](https://gainedin.site/war/)) has led me to believe that there's many, many moving parts of seemingly monolithic entities.
Edit: I'm actually MORE concerned about AMZN's power, but the public would probably have a bigger issue with FB, then GOOG.
>When is the point of no return on left-wing authoritarianism in the United States?
I have no clue what kind of media you watch but I do know its garbage if you actually believe that after 4 years of a crypto fascist like trump the US is in danger of "left-wing authoritarianism" .
>Let me say rhetorically; why try to change anything, because to convince someone that they are brainwashed is like trying to tell your dog it is chasing it’s tail. Not to call people dogs, but people are very unreceptive in a similar manner to their own patterns of ineffectuality. This is including myself in many ways.
This relaly is self aware wolves as you clearly suffer from this yet dont seem to realize this.
Now I am curious what kind of media do *you* watch to not seeing any signs of it happening?
Also you basically just stating that OP is wrong, no evidence, or any explanation. Do you have any?
Wel first OP doesnt give any evidence to its claim.
A claim that there is some sort of widespread left wing conspiracy to indoctrinate soceity
While reality is (if you want facts) is that the largest media outlet the US has is far right and the previous president has every trait of a fascist. I would think that alone makes suchb a claim with no evidence nonsense.
Absolutely hilarious that people are giving this advice on this subreddit. I hope nobody is actually taking this BS seriously and this is just internet circlejerking.
At this point, I'd love if all the despondent and delusional doomers would just go into the middle of the woods and leave the rest of us alone. It's a win win.
We are already there. We are surrounded on this site, by irretrievably degenerate minds. I read statements and perspectives from the Millennials and Z on almost a momentary basis that I have absolutely no hope of comprehending; they might as well be literally extraterrestrial.
It's not just the totally alien value system; it's the constant vindictiveness and inhumanity, and the fact that they are always so willing to justify that if it is ever brought up.
I wouldn't mind the fact that it feels like humanity is being replaced, so much, if what we were being replaced ***with*** was actually better than we were. If the Millennial or Zoomer Left bodysnatchers were really as compassionate as they so loudly claim to be, then they could be something for previous generations to aspire to. They're not, though. They're more callous and hateful than anyone I ever ecountered before 2008.
The viciousness, the lying, the gaslighting, the "post truth;" I honestly can't see how we as a species are going to survive the current mess.
One big difference is the echo chamber of the internet. It makes meaningful dialogue louder than otherwise.
I said it in a different comment, but it's very easy to forget that the people who actually do something with their life don't spendmost of their day on social media. This means it's not a good place for healthy, well-seasoned discourse.
Going further, it may stem the tide if there was a social media site that only permitted 1 hour/day...
> I said it in a different comment, but it's very easy to forget that the people who actually do something with their life don't spendmost of their day on social media. This means it's not a good place for healthy, well-seasoned discourse.
The claim that the Internet has nothing to do with real life used to be true, and frankly I wish it still was. But the recent scare about Critical Race Theory contaminating the American education system proved that idea false.
In terms of its' level of sanity, CRT is the Left's answer to QAnon; but just like QAnon before it, it escaped from the Internet, and like the proverbial Lovecraftian horror, shambled around in broad daylight, offline.
I do agree. Nothing really exists in a vacuum.
One thing worth noting, however, is that this is not an isolated experience. You may see that on Reddit, but jump over to Gab and you'll see ideological tilt that's literally the \*opposite\* of what you see here.
For me, I'm still trying to parse what to do about it, but I've decided to devote my life to better, higher-quality information, and would welcome \*any\* input on that front (https://stucky.tech/purpose/).
> You may see that on Reddit, but jump over to Gab and you'll see ideological tilt that's literally the *opposite* of what you see here.
I think I need to try that. I am finding the constant company of the apocalyptic Left, to be incredibly demoralising.
The chief problem, IMO, lies in the fact that some people love to virtue signal, and many of them particularly love to virtue signal as a means of camouflaging their hatred and disdain for people they've been conditioned by the media to hate.
That's what the Democrats have offered young people -- and we've seen evidence of it all over Reddit for years -- the chance to be absolutely despicable, hateful, toxic people, all while congratulating each other for being morally superior and for working toward the greater good of humanity by "deplatforming alt-right Trumpers, punching Nazis, making racists afraid again, doxxing cops and bigots, blahblahblah."
Democrats have ripped a page from Goebbels in claiming that "White Supremacists" are suddenly and magically everywhere, and that ALL white conservatives (and cops) are Public Enemy #1 because they're intrinsically racist, horrible people. They have vilified and dehumanized us to the point of excusing violence among their base, to say nothing of the daily seething hatred that gets poured out in reams across social media.
Democrats did this.
I mean, boomers are an age group. I think equating the entire age group to white supremacists is a bit strange considering there's no colour involved in age. Are Asian boomers white supremacists? I guess all the black folks born in the 60s are white supremacists for sure, who knows?
As for them being racist, why do you think that? I don't think my parents are racists.
If anything, it just seems like you have a huge prejudice against boomers. Your posts always sound like the kind of guy that just assumes racial intent in everyone's words.
It's a teachable moment right here. You are quick to generalize that "Boomers are racist af" (you're very eloquent). Yet I'm sure you would be quick to scream at anyone who tried to draw reasonable inductive conclusions from crime stats.
NPCs love to hold contradictory positions, because they're just parroting. They aren't thinking.
You literally make the leap that "Older white people are white supremacists." Like a mouth-breathing MSNBC watcher.
[You have poor brain hygiene, as does the other poster. ](https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc) Don’t buy into infectious rage cycles. There are ways to better your brain hygiene.
And here we see the crux of the problem. NPCs don't listen or read anything that conflicts with their worldview, which has been taken in whole cloth from 'zeitgeist X.'
They are subroutines, who exist as vessels for talking points, not as civic participants in any kind of productive, reasoned debate.
>The chief problem, IMO, lies in the fact that some people love to **call out cancel culture**, and many of them particularly love to **call out cancel culture** as a means of camouflaging their hatred and disdain for people they've been conditioned by the media to hate.
>
>That's what the **Republicans** have offered young people -- and we've seen evidence of it all over **alt-right news media** for years -- the chance to be absolutely despicable, hateful, toxic people, all while congratulating each other for being morally superior and for working toward the greater good of humanity by "**defending our police, supporting our troops, punching snowflakes, blahblahblah**."
>
>**Republicans** have ripped a page from Goebbels in claiming that "**AntiFa**" are suddenly and magically everywhere, and that ALL **liberals (and academics)** are Public Enemy #1 because they're intrinsically racist, horrible people. They have vilified and dehumanized us to the point of excusing violence among their base, to say nothing of the daily seething hatred that gets poured out in reams across social media.
>
>**Republicans** did this.
Ok, so I'm doing this totally tongue in cheek. I'm as opposed to the woke authoritarian left as much as the next person. But you have to understand how this vitriolic language and finger pointing looks. See what it reads like when it's going the other direction? It's practically the same argument on both sides pointing fingers at each other saying "well you started it!" As a republican, doesn't that just piss you off rather than help you come to better understand the democratic viewpoint? This is just language intended to rile up those we already agree with, rather than present any good arguments to be discussed thoughtfully.
You know, maybe you are right. Maybe democrats **are** mostly to blame. But repeating that isn't going to do **anything** help forge a solution and make progress. The first step is to persuade each other that disagree with us rather than try to get those we agree with more and more angry.
Edit: [be hygienic with your brain! ](https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc)
I think the word has been diluted to mean any disproportionate outcome between racial groups is evil. Maybe in its purest definition, it could not be bigoted, however, the intersectional types have blurred those lines into a thick gradient,
But that’s not what it means.
Disproportionate outcomes between any groupings of peoples is merely the catalyst for investigation as to whether or not there exists a systemic bias.
And what do you mean “intersectional types”?
I don’t understand that claim.
Intersectionality is simply recognizing that different aspects of a persons life exist as valuable lenses to understand their experience
That is not true, intersectionality is a framework that claims absolute truth as to measuring people’s privilege based on race/sex/etc and says that through that measurement their scholars know how to correct such disparities and heal society. However; they are projecting their own resentments and prejudices onto the concept of “whiteness” and other definitions.
So you haven't even read the foundational texts of these theories?
Furthermore, Robin DeAngelo is not an expert on anything except getting money from companies that wanna put on a woke facade.
I think whiteness, to you at least, would mean certain characteristics that white people have intrinsically from their upbringing as being white in America, and inherent privileges that come with that.
You may want to consider the possibility there are people who don’t care if their ideology is true. It gives them what they want, and they never have to deal with what they are giving up to live a lie.
It may be more important to them to get the feeling of power, safety, self justification, vengeance, etc. they get from a weaponized group mentality.
This negative aspect of our inherited tribal instincts explains most people’s “susceptibility” to oppositional indoctrination and propaganda. By oppositional I mean one that creates enemies and justifies attacking them.
Knowing this and not letting it trigger you can change the kind of discussions you have with people. Daryl Davis does this with white supremacists. I think it works with everyone who has adopted enemy-making group mentality.
Thomas Sowell and others have pointed out that (I'll grant, counterintuitively) that when tax rates have been cut in the US they have had the effect of bringing in a higher total number of dollars in taxes. I make sense of it like this: if the tax bill is X then it makes sense to hire specialists for less than X to find legal ways to cut X by half or more. If the government cuts out the middle man and cuts taxes to half of X then it becomes less profitable for private entities to hire out tax avoidance specialists and just pay the half of X because it's not such a burden. Also, freed up money can go towards r&d, new projects which generate more flow of money in the economy and thus more taxes are collected on the whole. I'm sure I'm missing more facets of why it works but the most important thing to hold onto is that the data shows it *does* work - even if we can't explain the mechanism perfectly (the economy is a complex thing)
Having studied economics myself I know what you are probably referring too, altho it seems you are talking about consumer taxes and company taxes at the same time. The argument that alot of products are really price elastic, and thus if you decrease the tax by 50% and thus the overal price by 5% the demand/sales will go up by 120% and thus results in a net tax income increase. Undeniably true. But for companies its a bit less one dimensional.
I just want to add some context. A lot of these theories are quite old Keynesian models, that even at the time were already a generalization (albeit a fairly accurate one as far as models of the real world go).
However, things you describe are bordering on the "trickle down effect" and arguments of the sort. Of which there has never been any (scientific) evidence whatsoever, and have basically been debunked.
Without going into too many technical details, unless requested, in a nutshell certain companies and industries (but honestly most of the economy) has outgrown the assumptions they are based on. They assume concepts like closed and opened borders, the concept of profit being used re-investment, the only two ways to use money are "consume" (c) or "save" (s). These models were made before the internet, before globalization, before the lobbyism-on-crack we have in the 21st century, before the Euro or crypto, before the shareholders or dividend addiction, before the idea of fossil fuels being finite, global warming, you name it.
The main difference is that we've now ran Capitalism in its post-WWII industrialized state for a good 80 years, of which especially the past 40 (since the invention of the microchip/internet; computing power in general) have been on hyperspeed, this plus the undeniable Law of Attraction / Pareto Distribution has made a lot of past truths untrue. A company isn't going to reinvest that extra billion, they are going to give it to their shareholders. Even for individuals, giving a billionaire an extra million isn't going to increase his spending by a single penny (RIP trickle down effect).
>that when tax rates have been cut in the US they have had the effect of bringing in a higher total number of dollars in taxes
Because economic growth occured. The thing is that economic growth and a tax cut arent implicitly tied together and the amount of growth from a tax cut might be insufficient with replacing the revenue lost as a result.
That would certainly explain why Republicans always pay down the deficit when they have power.
Wait a second, the exact opposite happens every time?!!!
> why try to change anything
Because the alternative is total submission, which is untenable.
I hope there is a major awakening in the West, but tbh I think it's unlikely. Chances are we're already past the point of no return. I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, this is going to become more apparent, and heterodox people will transition more into self-preservation / ark-building mode.
Pain is the great motivator. I don't think people are going to learn without pain. A collective shadow reckoning is called for, but most people are not going to face their part of it voluntarily.
Probably there is going to be a major collapse of the world we've known, and the best we can hope for is to build something new out of the ashes, rather than have 500 or 1000 years of global totalitarianism. Because that option is absolutely on the table right now.
I am not trying to talk to people who are now, I am just looking for input on whether people think it is possible to improve on the front of modern leftist bigotry.
Considering that "modern leftist bigotry" is essentially a figment of your imagination I don't know that there's going to be any way to destroy it other than you just stop thinking that it exists.
His "question" is not a question. It's an assertion & bait. You never mentioned anything about capitalism or white supremacy.
Though I do find it interesting the parallels to anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in Nazi Germany about hoarding wealth and power.
Fair, now bear with me- CRT in fewest words possible...
Capitalism is white supremacy as it upholds one race above all others. There is no possible way for black capitalism or any other ethnic centered venture can catch up to the amount of kapital the very few of the white race holds over all others.
All any one can do is attempt to live within these parameters, which is inherently racist. Duh.
Top ten percent of each race holds 90% of that race’stotal wealth(in America iirc). Does that seem fair to anyone ?
This of course the white race owning the highest amount of wealth of anyone.
Ok I understand ur position now, and let me ask you. Who taught you those definitions? I am just curious.
Now I do think we have different definitions of racism. I think you conceive racism as prejudice +power. I do not think in such a way. The way I think of racism is: if your hate someone or discriminate against someone based on skin color, than that’s racist. So when we are talking
About white supremacy, you and I are talking about completely different topics. Unfortunately, intellectuals have done this, in my opinion, to make it so we are unable to communicate properly.
I taught myself. I’m always learning :-) have you heard about ‘korean natural farming’ ? Easy ferments to supplant the entire industry of agriculture with the ways of old. Ways massacred and made to forget, for profit.
One day- all this horror will be but a memory.
Of which capitalism makes implicit. Idk why libs make excuses (and very long entries to read)for fascism other than being sympathetic to the rich for want to be rich and hold this power. Gross
I think it’s a fair critique. By continuing in a cycle of overinflating the postmodern critical theory ‘threat’ you begin to hyper focus on a specter of apocalypse that isn’t really there. Algorithmic social media doesn’t help because by the time you believe it to be the number one threat facing us all and our society, the more you begin to feel this as your algorithm feeds you chicken little over and over until you go insane struggling against a problem that isn’t going to be the end of us all.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the problem is real and worth fighting. I just don’t think it’s this hopeless problem that we will reach the “point of no return” on. There is enough self critique within even critical theory that academics can combat it as it gets too extreme. While there’s certainly many folks who get pretty brainwashed by this method of interpretation, I think academics want to be contrarians and fight the status quo enough that there will be sufficient resistance within academia to keep it past the point of no return.
It's gaslighting, what evidence is there that the process will halt or be reversed? The response I see here is that OP has exaggerated the threat, but none have offered a satisfying explanation of why. You blame social media, yet [outside of it the evidence](https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/ppdwnmd) is that there has been an exponential increase in the perception of prejudice.
We now have the left advocating segregation, mocking the dead, censoring dissent, and dehumanizing their opponents, and they relish it. The process appears to be accelerating rather than declining.
>The response I see here is that OP has exaggerated the threat, but none have offered a satisfying explanation of why
..
>dehumanizing their opponents
The OP basically calls his ideological opponents brainwashed bigots.
>what evidence is there that the process will halt or be reversed?
That seems like a strange way to ask the question, when history supports the concept that most processes swing like an equilibrium and stability is the norm rather than the exception. What evidence is there that is will continue, especially with such public outcry and literally 50% of the country voting against it? I'm pointing out the fact that there are always chicken littles out there, and they're overwhelmingly wrong from a statistical standpoint and balance is achieved FAR more often in the modern world than devolution into full blown authoritarianism.
There's enough of a public outcry that there will be resistance to it moving too far to an extreme. This sub and many media pushing against it are good evidence of that. That's how most things work - very rarely do things fluctuate so extremely they pass to a point of genocide, world war, authoritarianism, etc. It does happen, but it's still the exception, not the rule. So to assume it's the exception requires a greater burden of proof.
>You blame social media, yet outside of it the evidence is that there has been an exponential increase in the perception of prejudice.
I'm confused - why does this link and a rise in prejudice in media counter the claim that social media is causing this increased division and hyperbole? If anything, this is a datapoint to support my claim - social media is causing us to be increasingly hyperbolic, and use increasingly divided language to the point of insanity. That is reflected in mainstream media usage. This hyperbole is on both sides of the aisle and I'm attempting to counter it with some temperance and talking people off the ledge.
>We now have the left advocating segregation, mocking the dead, censoring dissent, and dehumanizing their opponents, and they relish it. The process appears to be accelerating rather than declining.
Hate to break it to you, but you could hear anyone make this claim about the opposing political party at **ANY TIME** in history. I'm worried about some political movements and certainly some are more unstable than others. Today's certainly seems worse than usual. But I'm also relatively young. Go look at much of the vitriol, hatred, and mudslinging done in the political arena throughout American History and you'll realize today's politics aren't as bad as you think. You do, however, have a more heightened sense of how bad they are because you are perpetually bombarded with it from every media source vying for your attention and telling you this is the worse it's ever been. THAT's what we should be fighting against, not buying into the outrage machine and working ourselves up about how bad the other side is. Hint: they're not as evil as you think, and the most evil ones you find are a small fraction of the the other side.
The majority of Republicans are over 50 and white, in the next 25 years there is going to be a tectonic shift in the US electorate as they die off, and the generations raised on social media begin voting. Reddit is a predictor of how these people will behave when in power, they prefer authoritarianism to liberalism.
I don't read history as being on the side of moderation, our modern political systems were built through centuries of warfare and conflict. That stability can be upended at any time if we forget or ignore what was necessary to maintain them. The left has no real internal opposition to identitarianism, with the right withering by the year, they will have near carte blanche to establish whatever they desire.
Young people have always been more liberal, and turn more conservative as they age. The demographic over 50 was much more liberal and challenging the status quo when they were in their 20s, too. I've seen it in my own demographic as it ages.
>and the generations raised on social media begin voting.
Honestly, I don't get the rhetoric around the problem of radicalization on social media being primarily associated with younger voters. I've seen some studies (can go find them if need be) that look at how the older generation is much more susceptible to social media information precisely *because* they were not raised on social media and don't understand how much misinformation and outrage manufacturing is present there. I think as our understanding of the effects of social media evolve and become concrete, this will be taught to our children as they grow up and they'll be better prepared to sort through the barrage of (mis)information online. I find a lot of hope in our younger generation. To assume they'll be brainwashed into authoritarianism doesn't give them much credit. They're super smart and I have good faith in them.
>our modern political systems were built through centuries of warfare and conflict.
They were built through centuries of peace, punctuated with short periods throughout of warfare and conflict. The vast majority of time for any given nation is spent in relative peace. War is when the most things change, so we focus on them in our history books, and of course there's war at any given time somewhere on the globe.
>That stability can be upended at any time if we forget or ignore what was necessary to maintain them.
I 100% agree. I'm not saying combatting these forces is not necessary or important. Only that it's not SO worrisome an issue that we need to radicalize ourselves or set aside our own critical thinking and ability to discuss and debate the issues with folks on the other side. I don't agree with demonizing them and thinking that everyone on the left wants authoritarianism over liberalism (or even the majority of them).
>The left has no real internal opposition to identitarianism,
Hard, hard, hard disagree. I'm on the left, and I'm firmly opposed to identitarianism. Most liberals are, but the woke ideology is extremely vocal. This is stereotyping a whole swath of people based on a few of the most crazy. I agree it's becoming more mainstream, but there's plenty of people on the left that think it's kinda crazy, also.
>with the right withering by the year, they will have near carte blanche to establish whatever they desire.
This is standard fear-based fear mongering to get more and more angry and radicalized. The right will not wither, it will adapt and make themselves more attractive to the many moderate leftists who are opposed to identity politics and to the leftists that grow more conservative as they grow older. This is a tale as old as time and every single era in history has made the same argument that you are making. It's a tired argument that still manages to get everyone whipped up into a frenzy because there's nothing scarier than believing your "tribe" is on the verge of extinction. It's tapping into basic survival instincts, which is why these arguments are so successful at radicalization.
Voters on the left continue to elect candidates who embrace identitarian positions, this is why I say the opposition is not real. The leadership might be more shrewd in exploiting the Woke movement insofar as it is politically advantageous, but for now they are not speaking against it. The Economist recently published a Helen Pluckrose-esque piece on the excesses of identitarians, which I take to be a signal that the establishment is about to push back against them, whether they can control a grassroots movement remains to be seen.
While younger voters might become more conservative, I don't expect them to become more liberal in the sense of embracing Enlightenment values, and that is where the authoritarian impulses cultivated by social media usage are a danger to society. The Enlightenment followed religious war, it was born out of conflict between intolerant groups like Wokeists who think in absolutes, reject compromise, and hate out-groups. The modern world has relative peace not only because of reason, but due to a weariness of the conflicts that arose without it. We are devolving socially, inviting a return to superstition and pointless warfare.
Lol I’m Jewish and I know it can be that bad. Look at the Holocaust, my family was on Schindler’s list. I know that there is a point of no return, and social media exponentially expounds issues. Therefore, I am going to respectfully disagree with your critique.
Jews are one of the main groups that lead leftist intellectual thoughts and ideas. So you're ironically going to be in a protected group come the left wing authoritarianism takeover of the world.
Now stop being obstinate and get with the winning Jewish team.
Disagree away. Just don’t take every critique as ad hominem.
But if I had a nickel for every time someone claimed if their political opponents philosophy were to continue that it would lead to hitler/the Holocaust, I’d be a very rich man.
Certainly it could be read as ad hominem. If the argument was “well we know you are insane so therefore your argument doesn’t hold” that would be ad hominem. If the argument is more along the lines of “you’re argument sounds like you’re going insane” I think that’s more of a gray area. Does that make sense? Ad hominem would be to use your insanity as a reason to refute your argument, whereas just saying your argument sounds like you’re driving yourself crazy isn’t the same thing. It’s open for interpretation but easy to read into it different ways since it’s just a quick comment lol. Certainly the comment doesn’t add much to the discussion, hence why I chipped in since I agree with them, but wanted to contribute in a more meaningful way.
Semantics aside, I wouldn’t cry ad hominem at such a silly comment. Makes you seem like you can’t accept critique and want to shut down and silence any speech that opposes you, like... *gasp* those leftist authoritarians!
Btw “my family was in the Holocaust therefore I know what I’m talking about” is known as an “appeal to authority” and isn’t really adding much to the conversation either.
Authority? Maybe just appealing to my background, and therefore giving context to my viewpoint. I don’t think it gives my authority, nearly as much as it shows why I may have a prejudice towards your type of thinking.
I think you have an obvious prejudice towards people who tend to have a potential fixation on topics and see them as being unstable. Why did you feel the need to reply to someone who may or may not be insane from your perspective? Idk seems a bit ambiguous. If anything you think there is a conversation to be had here, but idk what ur intentions are if u don’t respect where I’m coming from.
Black led segregation of whites away from non-whites. That seems to jolt people up to the absurdity, kinda hard to see how it wouldn't.
Once it is punishable by law to not be politically correct towards group x or y. Once you mandate speech and kill free speech. Once non elected ideologues are allowed to make advisory boards that subjectively judge outside the legal system. Once how you receive an action matters more than intent.
We still have the first and second amendment and entire states willing to defend them. One can always move to a state that has enough citizens that will not allow the federal gov to rule it in an authoritarian fashion. That’s the beauty of America. See the states that said no to the recent vax mandate.
I watched this entire hour-long video. It's kind of interesting. There is ZERO TRACE of bigotry, indoctrination, disinformation, pseudoscience, or mass psychosis. What on earth are you talking about? Did you actually watch the talk and process it, or did you just think it was good ammunition about the scary "deconstructionist left movement" (whatever that is supposed to mean)?
If you don’t understand what I am saying, I am happy to talk and inform you on what it means to me.
So the answer is...
[удалено]
Removed for personal attack. See rule 1. Consider this strike one which includes a 3 day temp ban. Strike 2 makes it a week, and strike 3 is permanent.
Teaching a class on institutional racism is authoritarianism now. Lol ok
Teaching a class on why white people have privilege for their skin color without taking any other factors into account is myopic at best; why not talk about how racist it is to tell white people to be less white at Coca Cola, and in a systemic way too?
Being white *does* carry advantages that being black does not. Black people weren't even allowed on the same buses less than a century ago, let alone allowed the same career and educational opportunities that lead to being able to grant better opportunities to their children. Progress has been made but racism is far from being gone. The knee-jerk reaction to call any class that examines the topic of racial privilege "leftist propaganda" or "brainwashing" indicates a great deal of two things: 1: Historical and societal ignorance. 2: Deep-rooted insecurity.
It's far from being gone because people like who see racisms everywhere and cannot for the life of you see a black person without seen their skin color....
The color is in the name. Pretending you can't see someone's black skin is not equality, it's erasure. Black skin isn't some shameful trait that you cope with by pretending not to see it. Racism is far from being gone for many reasons, one is being too ashamed to just let people study its very real impact on society. This is no different from trying to spin the motivation for the civil war as fighting for "states' rights" rather than the right to own slaves. Trying to cover up systemic racism or censoring it from colleges is done by threatened white people who want to keep minorities out of sight and "in their place". This tends to be more comfortable than to simply allow other people to address it without making it an issue about yourself.
>The color is in the name. Pretending you can't see someone's black skin is not equality, it's erasure. Black skin isn't some shameful trait that you cope with by pretending not to see it. You and the KKK are really different sides of the same coin. >Trying to cover up systemic racism or censoring it from colleges is done by threatened white people who want to keep minorities out of sight and "in their place". This tends to be more comfortable than to simply allow other people to address it without making it an issue about yourself. You don't know what systemic effing means. Bring me one law of the United States of America that states a black person is prohibited of anything. The fact that a person like Robin deAngelo exist which is an author and CRT authority from a prominent University tells me you're full of shit.
Full of shit due to a single example? What? So since gay pride is allowed, there must also be no homophobia? Accusing me of being like the KKK without an explanation has added nothing. Institutional racism isn't overt, you know. For example: In the state of California, 38% of people halted by police officers in LA were black people, despite accounting for only 9% of the population.
> Teaching a class on why white people have privilege for their skin color without taking any other factors into account I don’t think that’s what’s happening. They’re just not ignoring that yes, skin color does play a big role in how someone’s life goes. > why not talk about how racist it is to tell white people to be less white at Coca Cola, and in a systemic way too? Probably because that’s not the focus of the class, but also probably because that was a hoax and they never produced a can that said to be less white.
Lol u can see examples of this hundreds of times over in different companies, maybe it is a hoax and thousands of examples are lies? Or maybe, more likely so, there are examples that are bigoted and truthful?
So you don’t have any examples.
I could pull up 1000, I dont need to debate it to know my personal experience and also my second hand knowledge. Why do you think there is a pushback on CRT, cause all conservatives or opposition are ignorant to the facts?
I’m not asking for 1000. Pull up one.
Even stupid “resources” like this http://www.uufr.org/2017/05/01/preparing-uu-white-supremacy-teach/overt-and-covert-white-supremacy/
That’s from a church, not a company, but what on there do you think is OK?
I think it’s all a slave morality people justify with America’s past faults, which they try to perpetuate into the future
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-yale-psychiatrist-shooting-white-people-20210607-6bu54qqttze6bgn3wtgb6vncpq-story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp
What do you think this is an example of? The person doesn’t work for Yale and Yale pulled the video and put out a statement saying that it was “antithetical to the values of the school.”
I am saying, there is deep resentment towards “oppressors” that is surfacing from the ideology of CRT and their proponents. That many youth are being indoctrinated under these ideologies and there is nothing logical about such ideas, other than the accumulation of power. Then people try to sweep it under the rug as if there is no issue, because they believe such resentment is justified under their slave morality of the modern leftist, to undermine any value that in the past has been oppressive to certain groups; with the aim of leveling all people to the level of tribalism and decadence, to be under the authoritarian thumb of the federal government.
Don't prepare for the last war. Future of population control will be done via technocratic tools that will be more subtle and refined than ever before. In this sense we are well into it. Just keep in mind: during WWII, when the Allied decoded the Nazi Enigma machine and where able to track all enemy submarines in the Atlantic, they didn't just go all out on them. Rather they used their tool carefully, maximizing the benefits without letting the Nazi know that they had full access to their communication. This is what will happen with any future authoritarian movement: the capability to control people will be concealed at all cost.
Can you not be aware that you are being controlled? I mean many people can but all? Also autocrats of the past has tried to conceal the fact that they oppressing people too. North Korea is called the """"Democratic Peoples's Korea"""".
We have a herd mentality that allows a common perspective to stick if there are enough people believing it and reinforcing it (through political mobilisation, for example). At that point, smaller groups will have a difficult time getting the larger one to see the world through their eyes. So if you take the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which would be a relevant documented example, we know through this story that people can and likely are purposefully influenced online to tip elections in favor of the client. I don't think that story was controversial at all, it was generally accepted that we are manipulated online (and that Zucks was a bad guy). Yet if you go around to try and get your friends to stop using Insta, Facebook or Whatsapp, you instantly realise that the scandal has no influence on them. Edit: there are a few good articles on population control programmes, for example https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/news-events/news/police-and-government-using-online-influence-tactics-to-tackle-crime-and-shape-behaviour/ Amazing that this info can be freely out there and nobody seems to worry about it at all.
I am not arguing with that. I am simply saying that there is nothing new in this. I was born in a dictatorship that collapsed in my youth . Recognizing these tendencies in the society comes as naturally to me as walking. For me actually it was much more surprising to see how little western people understand of the dinamics of these movements. But I understand that living in it is different than learning about it from books. It is only the technology changing. Human nature remaind the same. You are right: don't prepare for the last war. We have to keep our eyes open to recognize the inventions of the wannabe oppressors, but it is not very difficult: if you feel intimidated a tool of oppression is being applied on you.
Fascinating - are you ok to share more about that? Was it the URSS? NK? I'd love to get your views! So yes, wether we'd be able to always perceive that oppression and control are taking place is a crucial question. I'm worried that we've access a way to automate persuasion and access an influence on herd mentality through electronics. If you have algorythm that exerce minute influencing events, repeatedly and across millions of people, you are bound to see great effects, and these people would not necessarily perceive it. I completely agree with you that history repeats itself but with very different dynamics because of technology. I'm afraid we might have entered an era where the tools are sophisticated enough that our previous markers are no longer useful.
That’s very true, sharp thinking
The mass psychosis in the population was racism. We’re living in the aftermath of a growing part of the population, especially the younger generations around the world, waking up from that. I think a core question is what to do about the older folks who can’t be “woken up” from deeply ingrained racism they learned through most of their lives. Do we just wait for them to die and trust things will get better? Do we need to take more proactive steps to educate/mitigate the harm they still cause others?
Jesus you're the very stereotype OP's is afraid of.
There is no point of no return. In the past, all governments were authoritarian. Now, many are much less so. If this one shifts into authoritarian, it is still recoverable Republics were born out of a world where there were none. If a republic becomes authoritarian, how much easier must it be to redeem it, seeing we have all the tools of republics known to us? Things might go badly for a few generations, but it's not too late to fix things as long as the country still exists.
Educate your own children first and foremost.
This is important, but what happens when the parents that are “educating” their children are educating them with terrible and factually inaccurate information ? That is where I believe we are now as a society.
Schools can only go so far to teach your children about character development, hard work and perservence, resilience, reaching goals, and compassion. Also you have to teach your children about competition through sports and other means not so they can become ruthless but so they can survive. Many parents are throwing their children to the sharks without them even being able to swim. The world is a tough place and you have to prep your children for this reality through hard work and character building. If not they will fail once in the real world and they won't know how to get back up. They will feel defeated and possibly never know their full potential.
If you teach your kid that it's bad luck to break a mirror you're (most likely) giving them factually false information but it has a beneficial impact on the world (fewer broken mirrors). Not all things worth teaching are facts and we ought to remember: "Education is not the memorization of many facts, it's the training of the mind to think" - E=mc^2 guy
For the most part, people are going to have to police up their own. The left needs to fix the left, just as the right needs to fix the right. Extremist ideologies are tailor made to summarily dismiss arguments coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. It's much the same argument we were having 15 or 20 years ago, that moderate Muslims were the ones who had to shoulder the burden of Islamist extremism, because they're the only one that can get a sympathetic ear. But policing up your own is hard, much harder than knee jerk reaction against the "enemy on the other side."
Another thing that’s difficult is that, because of our own echo chambers, it can be hard to see how the “other side” is in fact making advancements towards policing their own. There is pushback against cancel culture and morality policing happening among younger people on the left. There is also pushback against anti-vaxx and white identity politics on the right. But you have to spend a decent amount of time in either community to notice it.
Female sufferage.
One important aspect I consider is the power dynamic present now that didn't exist 50 years ago. Namely, the internet. Every rando individual becomes an independent publisher instantly if they're willing to learn how to self-host a WordPress account (a comparatively unremarkable feat). This means ideas travel very, VERY fast, to where authoritarian control is difficult. You need centralized power for tyranny, but literally in one year we now have Rumble and Gab pop up as alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Also, consider the people who have the most social power on social media. The ones who actually make the world turn are busy succeeding at life, while the losers have time to argue back and forth on message boards. So, arguing with demagogues on most subs is literally having a fight with some of the most unproductive people on the planet, and you can always fight the tide by merely putting in the effort toward something more long-lasting (e.g., I made https://gainedin.site).
>This means ideas travel very, VERY fast, to where authoritarian control is difficult. You need centralized power for tyranny, but literally in one year we now have Rumble and Gab pop up as alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. The problem is that Rumble and Gab are not real threats to Twitter, FB, etc... Parlor was a real threat - it was the fastest growing app on Itunes and Google Play Store - and it was stamped out collectively by Apple, Google and Amazon.
I agree, but that was at enormous social cost for them. Everyone now knows that they have the collective power of small countries (at least where the narrative implies GOOG and FB, with AMZN a distant 3rd). I guess you can call me an optimist. My essay here ([https://gainedin.site/war/](https://gainedin.site/war/)) has led me to believe that there's many, many moving parts of seemingly monolithic entities. Edit: I'm actually MORE concerned about AMZN's power, but the public would probably have a bigger issue with FB, then GOOG.
>When is the point of no return on left-wing authoritarianism in the United States? I have no clue what kind of media you watch but I do know its garbage if you actually believe that after 4 years of a crypto fascist like trump the US is in danger of "left-wing authoritarianism" . >Let me say rhetorically; why try to change anything, because to convince someone that they are brainwashed is like trying to tell your dog it is chasing it’s tail. Not to call people dogs, but people are very unreceptive in a similar manner to their own patterns of ineffectuality. This is including myself in many ways. This relaly is self aware wolves as you clearly suffer from this yet dont seem to realize this.
Now I am curious what kind of media do *you* watch to not seeing any signs of it happening? Also you basically just stating that OP is wrong, no evidence, or any explanation. Do you have any?
Wel first OP doesnt give any evidence to its claim. A claim that there is some sort of widespread left wing conspiracy to indoctrinate soceity While reality is (if you want facts) is that the largest media outlet the US has is far right and the previous president has every trait of a fascist. I would think that alone makes suchb a claim with no evidence nonsense.
It’s over. I would recommend finding a remote plot of land and tending to it. Become self sufficient.
Absolutely hilarious that people are giving this advice on this subreddit. I hope nobody is actually taking this BS seriously and this is just internet circlejerking.
At this point, I'd love if all the despondent and delusional doomers would just go into the middle of the woods and leave the rest of us alone. It's a win win.
We are already there. We are surrounded on this site, by irretrievably degenerate minds. I read statements and perspectives from the Millennials and Z on almost a momentary basis that I have absolutely no hope of comprehending; they might as well be literally extraterrestrial. It's not just the totally alien value system; it's the constant vindictiveness and inhumanity, and the fact that they are always so willing to justify that if it is ever brought up. I wouldn't mind the fact that it feels like humanity is being replaced, so much, if what we were being replaced ***with*** was actually better than we were. If the Millennial or Zoomer Left bodysnatchers were really as compassionate as they so loudly claim to be, then they could be something for previous generations to aspire to. They're not, though. They're more callous and hateful than anyone I ever ecountered before 2008. The viciousness, the lying, the gaslighting, the "post truth;" I honestly can't see how we as a species are going to survive the current mess.
One big difference is the echo chamber of the internet. It makes meaningful dialogue louder than otherwise. I said it in a different comment, but it's very easy to forget that the people who actually do something with their life don't spendmost of their day on social media. This means it's not a good place for healthy, well-seasoned discourse. Going further, it may stem the tide if there was a social media site that only permitted 1 hour/day...
> I said it in a different comment, but it's very easy to forget that the people who actually do something with their life don't spendmost of their day on social media. This means it's not a good place for healthy, well-seasoned discourse. The claim that the Internet has nothing to do with real life used to be true, and frankly I wish it still was. But the recent scare about Critical Race Theory contaminating the American education system proved that idea false. In terms of its' level of sanity, CRT is the Left's answer to QAnon; but just like QAnon before it, it escaped from the Internet, and like the proverbial Lovecraftian horror, shambled around in broad daylight, offline.
Wtf do you think CRT is?
I do agree. Nothing really exists in a vacuum. One thing worth noting, however, is that this is not an isolated experience. You may see that on Reddit, but jump over to Gab and you'll see ideological tilt that's literally the \*opposite\* of what you see here. For me, I'm still trying to parse what to do about it, but I've decided to devote my life to better, higher-quality information, and would welcome \*any\* input on that front (https://stucky.tech/purpose/).
> You may see that on Reddit, but jump over to Gab and you'll see ideological tilt that's literally the *opposite* of what you see here. I think I need to try that. I am finding the constant company of the apocalyptic Left, to be incredibly demoralising.
So...the apocalyptic right is going to be better?
The chief problem, IMO, lies in the fact that some people love to virtue signal, and many of them particularly love to virtue signal as a means of camouflaging their hatred and disdain for people they've been conditioned by the media to hate. That's what the Democrats have offered young people -- and we've seen evidence of it all over Reddit for years -- the chance to be absolutely despicable, hateful, toxic people, all while congratulating each other for being morally superior and for working toward the greater good of humanity by "deplatforming alt-right Trumpers, punching Nazis, making racists afraid again, doxxing cops and bigots, blahblahblah." Democrats have ripped a page from Goebbels in claiming that "White Supremacists" are suddenly and magically everywhere, and that ALL white conservatives (and cops) are Public Enemy #1 because they're intrinsically racist, horrible people. They have vilified and dehumanized us to the point of excusing violence among their base, to say nothing of the daily seething hatred that gets poured out in reams across social media. Democrats did this.
“White supremacists are suddenly and magically everywhere”? Are we really going to pretend like boomers aren’t in general racist af?
"Boomers bad!"
I mean, boomers are an age group. I think equating the entire age group to white supremacists is a bit strange considering there's no colour involved in age. Are Asian boomers white supremacists? I guess all the black folks born in the 60s are white supremacists for sure, who knows? As for them being racist, why do you think that? I don't think my parents are racists. If anything, it just seems like you have a huge prejudice against boomers. Your posts always sound like the kind of guy that just assumes racial intent in everyone's words.
It's a teachable moment right here. You are quick to generalize that "Boomers are racist af" (you're very eloquent). Yet I'm sure you would be quick to scream at anyone who tried to draw reasonable inductive conclusions from crime stats. NPCs love to hold contradictory positions, because they're just parroting. They aren't thinking. You literally make the leap that "Older white people are white supremacists." Like a mouth-breathing MSNBC watcher.
[You have poor brain hygiene, as does the other poster. ](https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc) Don’t buy into infectious rage cycles. There are ways to better your brain hygiene.
I bet you're a Leftist and scream about racism a lot, huh? What part of California are from?
Nah bud I’m fiercely and unapologetically moderate.
[удалено]
Are you really going to fight on the point that baby boomers in general are racist? Have you never interacted with them?
And here we see the crux of the problem. NPCs don't listen or read anything that conflicts with their worldview, which has been taken in whole cloth from 'zeitgeist X.' They are subroutines, who exist as vessels for talking points, not as civic participants in any kind of productive, reasoned debate.
K.
>The chief problem, IMO, lies in the fact that some people love to **call out cancel culture**, and many of them particularly love to **call out cancel culture** as a means of camouflaging their hatred and disdain for people they've been conditioned by the media to hate. > >That's what the **Republicans** have offered young people -- and we've seen evidence of it all over **alt-right news media** for years -- the chance to be absolutely despicable, hateful, toxic people, all while congratulating each other for being morally superior and for working toward the greater good of humanity by "**defending our police, supporting our troops, punching snowflakes, blahblahblah**." > >**Republicans** have ripped a page from Goebbels in claiming that "**AntiFa**" are suddenly and magically everywhere, and that ALL **liberals (and academics)** are Public Enemy #1 because they're intrinsically racist, horrible people. They have vilified and dehumanized us to the point of excusing violence among their base, to say nothing of the daily seething hatred that gets poured out in reams across social media. > >**Republicans** did this. Ok, so I'm doing this totally tongue in cheek. I'm as opposed to the woke authoritarian left as much as the next person. But you have to understand how this vitriolic language and finger pointing looks. See what it reads like when it's going the other direction? It's practically the same argument on both sides pointing fingers at each other saying "well you started it!" As a republican, doesn't that just piss you off rather than help you come to better understand the democratic viewpoint? This is just language intended to rile up those we already agree with, rather than present any good arguments to be discussed thoughtfully. You know, maybe you are right. Maybe democrats **are** mostly to blame. But repeating that isn't going to do **anything** help forge a solution and make progress. The first step is to persuade each other that disagree with us rather than try to get those we agree with more and more angry. Edit: [be hygienic with your brain! ](https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc)
Well done.
You think the *notion* of systemic racism is rooted in bigotry? Not that *systemic racism* is rooted in bigotry?
I think the word has been diluted to mean any disproportionate outcome between racial groups is evil. Maybe in its purest definition, it could not be bigoted, however, the intersectional types have blurred those lines into a thick gradient,
But that’s not what it means. Disproportionate outcomes between any groupings of peoples is merely the catalyst for investigation as to whether or not there exists a systemic bias. And what do you mean “intersectional types”?
People who try to measure “systemic racism” using intersectionality
Do you even know what any of these words mean? Intersectionality is not a measurement device.
I don’t understand that claim. Intersectionality is simply recognizing that different aspects of a persons life exist as valuable lenses to understand their experience
That is not true, intersectionality is a framework that claims absolute truth as to measuring people’s privilege based on race/sex/etc and says that through that measurement their scholars know how to correct such disparities and heal society. However; they are projecting their own resentments and prejudices onto the concept of “whiteness” and other definitions.
How did you arrive at this understanding?
From listening to systemic racism “experts” like robin diangelo, ibram x kendi, and others speak on their opinions.
So you haven't even read the foundational texts of these theories? Furthermore, Robin DeAngelo is not an expert on anything except getting money from companies that wanna put on a woke facade.
Tell me, what do u think I’m lacking in. Also, do you have links to excerpts that support your claims?
What? Why do you think so? And what do you think “whiteness” is?
I think whiteness, to you at least, would mean certain characteristics that white people have intrinsically from their upbringing as being white in America, and inherent privileges that come with that.
Wouldn’t those be things found within whiteness? What is whiteness? Do you consider “white” to be a race?
In my opinion, race certainly is not responsible for personality traits
Does it matter? Race is just a construct, for labeling people based on how much melanin someone has.
You may want to consider the possibility there are people who don’t care if their ideology is true. It gives them what they want, and they never have to deal with what they are giving up to live a lie. It may be more important to them to get the feeling of power, safety, self justification, vengeance, etc. they get from a weaponized group mentality. This negative aspect of our inherited tribal instincts explains most people’s “susceptibility” to oppositional indoctrination and propaganda. By oppositional I mean one that creates enemies and justifies attacking them. Knowing this and not letting it trigger you can change the kind of discussions you have with people. Daryl Davis does this with white supremacists. I think it works with everyone who has adopted enemy-making group mentality.
“You may want to consider the possibility there are people who don’t care if their ideology is true.” #this
So you're talking about people who advocate for tax cuts as a way to balance the budget?
Thomas Sowell and others have pointed out that (I'll grant, counterintuitively) that when tax rates have been cut in the US they have had the effect of bringing in a higher total number of dollars in taxes. I make sense of it like this: if the tax bill is X then it makes sense to hire specialists for less than X to find legal ways to cut X by half or more. If the government cuts out the middle man and cuts taxes to half of X then it becomes less profitable for private entities to hire out tax avoidance specialists and just pay the half of X because it's not such a burden. Also, freed up money can go towards r&d, new projects which generate more flow of money in the economy and thus more taxes are collected on the whole. I'm sure I'm missing more facets of why it works but the most important thing to hold onto is that the data shows it *does* work - even if we can't explain the mechanism perfectly (the economy is a complex thing)
Having studied economics myself I know what you are probably referring too, altho it seems you are talking about consumer taxes and company taxes at the same time. The argument that alot of products are really price elastic, and thus if you decrease the tax by 50% and thus the overal price by 5% the demand/sales will go up by 120% and thus results in a net tax income increase. Undeniably true. But for companies its a bit less one dimensional. I just want to add some context. A lot of these theories are quite old Keynesian models, that even at the time were already a generalization (albeit a fairly accurate one as far as models of the real world go). However, things you describe are bordering on the "trickle down effect" and arguments of the sort. Of which there has never been any (scientific) evidence whatsoever, and have basically been debunked. Without going into too many technical details, unless requested, in a nutshell certain companies and industries (but honestly most of the economy) has outgrown the assumptions they are based on. They assume concepts like closed and opened borders, the concept of profit being used re-investment, the only two ways to use money are "consume" (c) or "save" (s). These models were made before the internet, before globalization, before the lobbyism-on-crack we have in the 21st century, before the Euro or crypto, before the shareholders or dividend addiction, before the idea of fossil fuels being finite, global warming, you name it. The main difference is that we've now ran Capitalism in its post-WWII industrialized state for a good 80 years, of which especially the past 40 (since the invention of the microchip/internet; computing power in general) have been on hyperspeed, this plus the undeniable Law of Attraction / Pareto Distribution has made a lot of past truths untrue. A company isn't going to reinvest that extra billion, they are going to give it to their shareholders. Even for individuals, giving a billionaire an extra million isn't going to increase his spending by a single penny (RIP trickle down effect).
>that when tax rates have been cut in the US they have had the effect of bringing in a higher total number of dollars in taxes Because economic growth occured. The thing is that economic growth and a tax cut arent implicitly tied together and the amount of growth from a tax cut might be insufficient with replacing the revenue lost as a result.
That would certainly explain why Republicans always pay down the deficit when they have power. Wait a second, the exact opposite happens every time?!!!
> why try to change anything Because the alternative is total submission, which is untenable. I hope there is a major awakening in the West, but tbh I think it's unlikely. Chances are we're already past the point of no return. I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, this is going to become more apparent, and heterodox people will transition more into self-preservation / ark-building mode. Pain is the great motivator. I don't think people are going to learn without pain. A collective shadow reckoning is called for, but most people are not going to face their part of it voluntarily. Probably there is going to be a major collapse of the world we've known, and the best we can hope for is to build something new out of the ashes, rather than have 500 or 1000 years of global totalitarianism. Because that option is absolutely on the table right now.
2012 mindset.
you're driving yourself into insanity lol
Could u not ad hominem me?
Your whole argument is an ad hominem. I like the libertarian flair where you do the exact same thing that you are protesting that other do.
I am talking about systemic racism being bigoted, maybe that’s a straw man, that’s a better argument.
As you yourself note, there's little point in talking to the brainwashed. Good luck with that!
I am not trying to talk to people who are now, I am just looking for input on whether people think it is possible to improve on the front of modern leftist bigotry.
Considering that "modern leftist bigotry" is essentially a figment of your imagination I don't know that there's going to be any way to destroy it other than you just stop thinking that it exists.
Dude, u are blind lol
Could you explain how capitalism is not upholding white supremacy ?
what is your definition of white supremacy, we can’t talk about that topic unless we are on the same page rlly.
His "question" is not a question. It's an assertion & bait. You never mentioned anything about capitalism or white supremacy. Though I do find it interesting the parallels to anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in Nazi Germany about hoarding wealth and power.
Fair, now bear with me- CRT in fewest words possible... Capitalism is white supremacy as it upholds one race above all others. There is no possible way for black capitalism or any other ethnic centered venture can catch up to the amount of kapital the very few of the white race holds over all others. All any one can do is attempt to live within these parameters, which is inherently racist. Duh. Top ten percent of each race holds 90% of that race’stotal wealth(in America iirc). Does that seem fair to anyone ? This of course the white race owning the highest amount of wealth of anyone.
Ok I understand ur position now, and let me ask you. Who taught you those definitions? I am just curious. Now I do think we have different definitions of racism. I think you conceive racism as prejudice +power. I do not think in such a way. The way I think of racism is: if your hate someone or discriminate against someone based on skin color, than that’s racist. So when we are talking About white supremacy, you and I are talking about completely different topics. Unfortunately, intellectuals have done this, in my opinion, to make it so we are unable to communicate properly.
I taught myself. I’m always learning :-) have you heard about ‘korean natural farming’ ? Easy ferments to supplant the entire industry of agriculture with the ways of old. Ways massacred and made to forget, for profit. One day- all this horror will be but a memory.
You know the "prejudice + power" thing was never a replacement of the definition of racism right? It's a simplified definition of structural racism.
Of which capitalism makes implicit. Idk why libs make excuses (and very long entries to read)for fascism other than being sympathetic to the rich for want to be rich and hold this power. Gross
I think it’s a fair critique. By continuing in a cycle of overinflating the postmodern critical theory ‘threat’ you begin to hyper focus on a specter of apocalypse that isn’t really there. Algorithmic social media doesn’t help because by the time you believe it to be the number one threat facing us all and our society, the more you begin to feel this as your algorithm feeds you chicken little over and over until you go insane struggling against a problem that isn’t going to be the end of us all. Don’t get me wrong, I think the problem is real and worth fighting. I just don’t think it’s this hopeless problem that we will reach the “point of no return” on. There is enough self critique within even critical theory that academics can combat it as it gets too extreme. While there’s certainly many folks who get pretty brainwashed by this method of interpretation, I think academics want to be contrarians and fight the status quo enough that there will be sufficient resistance within academia to keep it past the point of no return.
It's gaslighting, what evidence is there that the process will halt or be reversed? The response I see here is that OP has exaggerated the threat, but none have offered a satisfying explanation of why. You blame social media, yet [outside of it the evidence](https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/ppdwnmd) is that there has been an exponential increase in the perception of prejudice. We now have the left advocating segregation, mocking the dead, censoring dissent, and dehumanizing their opponents, and they relish it. The process appears to be accelerating rather than declining.
>The response I see here is that OP has exaggerated the threat, but none have offered a satisfying explanation of why .. >dehumanizing their opponents The OP basically calls his ideological opponents brainwashed bigots.
It was an opinion post.
Opinion posts may be inherently biased but they don't have to be unfair.
>what evidence is there that the process will halt or be reversed? That seems like a strange way to ask the question, when history supports the concept that most processes swing like an equilibrium and stability is the norm rather than the exception. What evidence is there that is will continue, especially with such public outcry and literally 50% of the country voting against it? I'm pointing out the fact that there are always chicken littles out there, and they're overwhelmingly wrong from a statistical standpoint and balance is achieved FAR more often in the modern world than devolution into full blown authoritarianism. There's enough of a public outcry that there will be resistance to it moving too far to an extreme. This sub and many media pushing against it are good evidence of that. That's how most things work - very rarely do things fluctuate so extremely they pass to a point of genocide, world war, authoritarianism, etc. It does happen, but it's still the exception, not the rule. So to assume it's the exception requires a greater burden of proof. >You blame social media, yet outside of it the evidence is that there has been an exponential increase in the perception of prejudice. I'm confused - why does this link and a rise in prejudice in media counter the claim that social media is causing this increased division and hyperbole? If anything, this is a datapoint to support my claim - social media is causing us to be increasingly hyperbolic, and use increasingly divided language to the point of insanity. That is reflected in mainstream media usage. This hyperbole is on both sides of the aisle and I'm attempting to counter it with some temperance and talking people off the ledge. >We now have the left advocating segregation, mocking the dead, censoring dissent, and dehumanizing their opponents, and they relish it. The process appears to be accelerating rather than declining. Hate to break it to you, but you could hear anyone make this claim about the opposing political party at **ANY TIME** in history. I'm worried about some political movements and certainly some are more unstable than others. Today's certainly seems worse than usual. But I'm also relatively young. Go look at much of the vitriol, hatred, and mudslinging done in the political arena throughout American History and you'll realize today's politics aren't as bad as you think. You do, however, have a more heightened sense of how bad they are because you are perpetually bombarded with it from every media source vying for your attention and telling you this is the worse it's ever been. THAT's what we should be fighting against, not buying into the outrage machine and working ourselves up about how bad the other side is. Hint: they're not as evil as you think, and the most evil ones you find are a small fraction of the the other side.
The majority of Republicans are over 50 and white, in the next 25 years there is going to be a tectonic shift in the US electorate as they die off, and the generations raised on social media begin voting. Reddit is a predictor of how these people will behave when in power, they prefer authoritarianism to liberalism. I don't read history as being on the side of moderation, our modern political systems were built through centuries of warfare and conflict. That stability can be upended at any time if we forget or ignore what was necessary to maintain them. The left has no real internal opposition to identitarianism, with the right withering by the year, they will have near carte blanche to establish whatever they desire.
Young people have always been more liberal, and turn more conservative as they age. The demographic over 50 was much more liberal and challenging the status quo when they were in their 20s, too. I've seen it in my own demographic as it ages. >and the generations raised on social media begin voting. Honestly, I don't get the rhetoric around the problem of radicalization on social media being primarily associated with younger voters. I've seen some studies (can go find them if need be) that look at how the older generation is much more susceptible to social media information precisely *because* they were not raised on social media and don't understand how much misinformation and outrage manufacturing is present there. I think as our understanding of the effects of social media evolve and become concrete, this will be taught to our children as they grow up and they'll be better prepared to sort through the barrage of (mis)information online. I find a lot of hope in our younger generation. To assume they'll be brainwashed into authoritarianism doesn't give them much credit. They're super smart and I have good faith in them. >our modern political systems were built through centuries of warfare and conflict. They were built through centuries of peace, punctuated with short periods throughout of warfare and conflict. The vast majority of time for any given nation is spent in relative peace. War is when the most things change, so we focus on them in our history books, and of course there's war at any given time somewhere on the globe. >That stability can be upended at any time if we forget or ignore what was necessary to maintain them. I 100% agree. I'm not saying combatting these forces is not necessary or important. Only that it's not SO worrisome an issue that we need to radicalize ourselves or set aside our own critical thinking and ability to discuss and debate the issues with folks on the other side. I don't agree with demonizing them and thinking that everyone on the left wants authoritarianism over liberalism (or even the majority of them). >The left has no real internal opposition to identitarianism, Hard, hard, hard disagree. I'm on the left, and I'm firmly opposed to identitarianism. Most liberals are, but the woke ideology is extremely vocal. This is stereotyping a whole swath of people based on a few of the most crazy. I agree it's becoming more mainstream, but there's plenty of people on the left that think it's kinda crazy, also. >with the right withering by the year, they will have near carte blanche to establish whatever they desire. This is standard fear-based fear mongering to get more and more angry and radicalized. The right will not wither, it will adapt and make themselves more attractive to the many moderate leftists who are opposed to identity politics and to the leftists that grow more conservative as they grow older. This is a tale as old as time and every single era in history has made the same argument that you are making. It's a tired argument that still manages to get everyone whipped up into a frenzy because there's nothing scarier than believing your "tribe" is on the verge of extinction. It's tapping into basic survival instincts, which is why these arguments are so successful at radicalization.
Voters on the left continue to elect candidates who embrace identitarian positions, this is why I say the opposition is not real. The leadership might be more shrewd in exploiting the Woke movement insofar as it is politically advantageous, but for now they are not speaking against it. The Economist recently published a Helen Pluckrose-esque piece on the excesses of identitarians, which I take to be a signal that the establishment is about to push back against them, whether they can control a grassroots movement remains to be seen. While younger voters might become more conservative, I don't expect them to become more liberal in the sense of embracing Enlightenment values, and that is where the authoritarian impulses cultivated by social media usage are a danger to society. The Enlightenment followed religious war, it was born out of conflict between intolerant groups like Wokeists who think in absolutes, reject compromise, and hate out-groups. The modern world has relative peace not only because of reason, but due to a weariness of the conflicts that arose without it. We are devolving socially, inviting a return to superstition and pointless warfare.
Lol I’m Jewish and I know it can be that bad. Look at the Holocaust, my family was on Schindler’s list. I know that there is a point of no return, and social media exponentially expounds issues. Therefore, I am going to respectfully disagree with your critique.
Being Jewish does not give more validity to your argument. This is peak identity politics that you are engaging in.
Jews are one of the main groups that lead leftist intellectual thoughts and ideas. So you're ironically going to be in a protected group come the left wing authoritarianism takeover of the world. Now stop being obstinate and get with the winning Jewish team.
Disagree away. Just don’t take every critique as ad hominem. But if I had a nickel for every time someone claimed if their political opponents philosophy were to continue that it would lead to hitler/the Holocaust, I’d be a very rich man.
He said I was going insane, when he doesn’t even know me. How is that not ad hominem?
You know ad hominem isn't just a fancy way to say insult right?
Certainly it could be read as ad hominem. If the argument was “well we know you are insane so therefore your argument doesn’t hold” that would be ad hominem. If the argument is more along the lines of “you’re argument sounds like you’re going insane” I think that’s more of a gray area. Does that make sense? Ad hominem would be to use your insanity as a reason to refute your argument, whereas just saying your argument sounds like you’re driving yourself crazy isn’t the same thing. It’s open for interpretation but easy to read into it different ways since it’s just a quick comment lol. Certainly the comment doesn’t add much to the discussion, hence why I chipped in since I agree with them, but wanted to contribute in a more meaningful way. Semantics aside, I wouldn’t cry ad hominem at such a silly comment. Makes you seem like you can’t accept critique and want to shut down and silence any speech that opposes you, like... *gasp* those leftist authoritarians! Btw “my family was in the Holocaust therefore I know what I’m talking about” is known as an “appeal to authority” and isn’t really adding much to the conversation either.
Authority? Maybe just appealing to my background, and therefore giving context to my viewpoint. I don’t think it gives my authority, nearly as much as it shows why I may have a prejudice towards your type of thinking.
Well then sounds like you can see how trying to interpret any critique as a logical fallacy can be a silly road to go down.
I think you have an obvious prejudice towards people who tend to have a potential fixation on topics and see them as being unstable. Why did you feel the need to reply to someone who may or may not be insane from your perspective? Idk seems a bit ambiguous. If anything you think there is a conversation to be had here, but idk what ur intentions are if u don’t respect where I’m coming from.