6 ms·

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for equality because they do not possess the humbleness to bring themselves to the level of the common person. They believe themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to the common Joe. And yet they want to dupe the common Joe into thinking that they will safeguard his interests while at the same time thinking so poorly of him!

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
> these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. Might as well call them extreme-left, which is just as bad as extreme-right and the extreme ideologies that come with it. The left / right spectrum aren't polar opposites either, but it tends to be horseshoe-shaped, so you'll find some ideas that are dangerously close to those on the other side (#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging. Somehow it's not causing as much as an outrage as #KillAllJews would).
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Still recommended reading: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians... The key takeaway isn't so much that the left/right spectrum is a horse shoe, but that in fact there are (at least) two independent axes, and authoritarian attitudes don't necessarily correspond neatly to left/right distinctions. Although the book spends a lot of time looking at authoritarians on the far right, there's an interesting and useful coda about left wing authoritarians. I've found it much more useful to ignore the traditional spectrum and look instead at the degree of scorn, hatred, support for social violence and exclusion, and/or support for direct physical violence. Non-authoritarians don't support harm of others. Even revenge is uncomfortable. Authoritarians make a point of conspicuous identification with power and authority - however defined - and reliably support verbal, social, emotional, and physical violence. Self-identified political groupings are much less relevant than tone and behaviour.
- socialist_coder 11y ago
  I don't think your political leaning has anything to do with being a crybaby who thinks they are entitled to live in a "safe space". You can easily be an extreme liberal or conservative and still tolerate other views. This has nothing to do with their politics.
BurningFrog 11y ago
The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.
- CM30 11y ago
  Because certain parts of the media have a disturbing attachment to such beliefs (despite their jobs being closely tied to freedom of speech and expression) and these types appealed to their views perfectly. Perhaps because of a certain 'holier than thou' attitude towards the general public. It might also be because for an authority figure, this sort of thing is a great distraction. It takes the focus away from wealth inequality and corporatism and aims it at other normal people with the 'wrong' opinions.
- eitland 11y ago
  Just look at this very forum anytime anyone mentions maybe just maybe some self-proclaimed feminists do more harm than good.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  This is the most interesting part of the whole phenomenon. I think the answer is that everyone is scared to confront them. The modus operandi of this movement is to personally attack the character of anyone who disagrees with them. They've toppled university presidents, CEOs, and politicians. They got Rolling Stone to publish a completely unsubstantiated article falsely accusing a bunch of young men of a vicious gang rape. No one wants to be next.
  - gaius 11y ago
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
    - MollyR 11y ago
      Wow thank you for this link. Its interesting to see where these horrible tactics come from. It certainly frightening to see things like rule 13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. This is horrifying to see codified, and what I assume being practiced on purpose, like what those yale students did to their professor, or at least tried too.
redthrowaway 11y ago
I think "vanguardist" is a better term than "elitist". "Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege, whereas these people see themselves much more as the enlightened few bringing the orthodox[1] to the unwashed masses by any means necessary. They share far more in common with Communists who viewed it as their duty to shepherd the proletariat towards social consciousness than with the Oxbridge set who merely take what's "rightfully" theirs without a second thought. [1] in the literal, etymological sense
- asift 11y ago
  >"Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege Any student on an Ivy League campus is among the most privileged human beings in the world (regardless of where they came from).
  - redthrowaway 11y ago
    Sure. I'm not sure how that addresses the topic at hand, though. We were talking about what drives these kids to behave in the way they do. The GP described their ideology as elitist, whereas I view it more as vanguardist. I'm not sure how these kids' privilege relates to that discussion.
  - XaspR8d 11y ago
    True, but this discussion is being used as a lens for the greater social justice movement, where it would be hard to make the same generality (especially when their uniting quality is that they denounce privilege).
  - CM30 11y ago
    Exactly. The people often complaining about 'privilege' are some of the most privileged individuals out there, yet they don't see that their huge class based advantages kind of make the others a tad moot. But hey, got to complain about the attitudes of those from a worse background, because otherwise they'd have to see their own issues and the holes in their own belief systems.
  - throwaway999888 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 11y ago
Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting). I'm not sure this is the most effective way to communicate their ideas, but the frustration and discomfort they are causing to other people is something that they have a lifetime's experience of, which is why they are able to push people's button's so effectively. They are showing people what it feels like to be unexpectedly and unjustly placed into an out-group.
- flopto 11y ago
  > Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting). I think this is spot-on. > They are showing people what it feels like to be unexpectedly and unjustly placed into an out-group. But I don't think this is the intent. Rather, the goal is to create a place where the structures they oppose are weaker/nonexistent. A consequence may be that people with privilege are made uncomfortable and/or put in an out-group, and that is fine because as you said this "is something that they have a lifetime's experience of." And that discomfort is even seen positively as a sign that the culture is going in the right direction, but it is just a symptom, not the goal.
jonesb6 11y ago
I read a post on reddit the other day that left vs right is really a horse shoe. That the far left and far right are very close to each other. I thought it was fairly intuitive.
karmacondon 11y ago
So if Common Joe's views on gender can be summarized as "Women should stay in the kitchen", is it elitist to not take that idea seriously? It has nothing to do with people's relative social or intellectual standing, and no one should have to bring themselves down to anyone else's level. Bad ideas are bad ideas, and should be labelled as such. It's hard to tell if someone making a controversial statement is doing so to learn and participate in discussion, or if they're just trolling. And with ol' Common Joe the latter can be just as likely as the former. So sometimes people err on the side of caution, and prefer to avoid outright controversial topics that are difficult to discuss and articulate. I don't think it's an issue of anyone looking down on anyone else.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  I have never seen a single person take the position you a suggesting with any real seriousness, this is a caricature of a real discussion, the problem is who gets to decide on what the current brand of "band ideas" are. At the moment its who ever is the biggest bully.
- caskance 11y ago
  It depends on whether you don't take that idea seriously because you have thought seriously about whether women should stay in the kitchen and have concluded that they shouldn't, or whether it's just because that's what Common Joe thinks.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago

> these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. Might as well call them extreme-left, which is just as bad as extreme-right and the extreme ideologies that come with it. The left / right spectrum aren't polar opposites either, but it tends to be horseshoe-shaped, so you'll find some ideas that are dangerously close to those on the other side (#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging. Somehow it's not causing as much as an outrage as #KillAllJews would).

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Still recommended reading: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians... The key takeaway isn't so much that the left/right spectrum is a horse shoe, but that in fact there are (at least) two independent axes, and authoritarian attitudes don't necessarily correspond neatly to left/right distinctions. Although the book spends a lot of time looking at authoritarians on the far right, there's an interesting and useful coda about left wing authoritarians. I've found it much more useful to ignore the traditional spectrum and look instead at the degree of scorn, hatred, support for social violence and exclusion, and/or support for direct physical violence. Non-authoritarians don't support harm of others. Even revenge is uncomfortable. Authoritarians make a point of conspicuous identification with power and authority - however defined - and reliably support verbal, social, emotional, and physical violence. Self-identified political groupings are much less relevant than tone and behaviour.
socialist_coder 11y ago
I don't think your political leaning has anything to do with being a crybaby who thinks they are entitled to live in a "safe space". You can easily be an extreme liberal or conservative and still tolerate other views. This has nothing to do with their politics.

BurningFrog 11y ago

The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.

CM30 11y ago
Because certain parts of the media have a disturbing attachment to such beliefs (despite their jobs being closely tied to freedom of speech and expression) and these types appealed to their views perfectly. Perhaps because of a certain 'holier than thou' attitude towards the general public. It might also be because for an authority figure, this sort of thing is a great distraction. It takes the focus away from wealth inequality and corporatism and aims it at other normal people with the 'wrong' opinions.
eitland 11y ago
Just look at this very forum anytime anyone mentions maybe just maybe some self-proclaimed feminists do more harm than good.
marcoperaza 11y ago
This is the most interesting part of the whole phenomenon. I think the answer is that everyone is scared to confront them. The modus operandi of this movement is to personally attack the character of anyone who disagrees with them. They've toppled university presidents, CEOs, and politicians. They got Rolling Stone to publish a completely unsubstantiated article falsely accusing a bunch of young men of a vicious gang rape. No one wants to be next.
- gaius 11y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
  - MollyR 11y ago
    Wow thank you for this link. Its interesting to see where these horrible tactics come from. It certainly frightening to see things like rule 13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. This is horrifying to see codified, and what I assume being practiced on purpose, like what those yale students did to their professor, or at least tried too.

redthrowaway 11y ago

I think "vanguardist" is a better term than "elitist". "Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege, whereas these people see themselves much more as the enlightened few bringing the orthodox[1] to the unwashed masses by any means necessary. They share far more in common with Communists who viewed it as their duty to shepherd the proletariat towards social consciousness than with the Oxbridge set who merely take what's "rightfully" theirs without a second thought. [1] in the literal, etymological sense

asift 11y ago
>"Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege Any student on an Ivy League campus is among the most privileged human beings in the world (regardless of where they came from).
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  Sure. I'm not sure how that addresses the topic at hand, though. We were talking about what drives these kids to behave in the way they do. The GP described their ideology as elitist, whereas I view it more as vanguardist. I'm not sure how these kids' privilege relates to that discussion.
- XaspR8d 11y ago
  True, but this discussion is being used as a lens for the greater social justice movement, where it would be hard to make the same generality (especially when their uniting quality is that they denounce privilege).
- CM30 11y ago
  Exactly. The people often complaining about 'privilege' are some of the most privileged individuals out there, yet they don't see that their huge class based advantages kind of make the others a tad moot. But hey, got to complain about the attitudes of those from a worse background, because otherwise they'd have to see their own issues and the holes in their own belief systems.
- throwaway999888 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 11y ago

Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting). I'm not sure this is the most effective way to communicate their ideas, but the frustration and discomfort they are causing to other people is something that they have a lifetime's experience of, which is why they are able to push people's button's so effectively. They are showing people what it feels like to be unexpectedly and unjustly placed into an out-group.

flopto 11y ago
> Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting). I think this is spot-on. > They are showing people what it feels like to be unexpectedly and unjustly placed into an out-group. But I don't think this is the intent. Rather, the goal is to create a place where the structures they oppose are weaker/nonexistent. A consequence may be that people with privilege are made uncomfortable and/or put in an out-group, and that is fine because as you said this "is something that they have a lifetime's experience of." And that discomfort is even seen positively as a sign that the culture is going in the right direction, but it is just a symptom, not the goal.

jonesb6 11y ago

I read a post on reddit the other day that left vs right is really a horse shoe. That the far left and far right are very close to each other. I thought it was fairly intuitive.

karmacondon 11y ago

So if Common Joe's views on gender can be summarized as "Women should stay in the kitchen", is it elitist to not take that idea seriously? It has nothing to do with people's relative social or intellectual standing, and no one should have to bring themselves down to anyone else's level. Bad ideas are bad ideas, and should be labelled as such. It's hard to tell if someone making a controversial statement is doing so to learn and participate in discussion, or if they're just trolling. And with ol' Common Joe the latter can be just as likely as the former. So sometimes people err on the side of caution, and prefer to avoid outright controversial topics that are difficult to discuss and articulate. I don't think it's an issue of anyone looking down on anyone else.

ps4fanboy 11y ago
I have never seen a single person take the position you a suggesting with any real seriousness, this is a caricature of a real discussion, the problem is who gets to decide on what the current brand of "band ideas" are. At the moment its who ever is the biggest bully.
caskance 11y ago
It depends on whether you don't take that idea seriously because you have thought seriously about whether women should stay in the kitchen and have concluded that they shouldn't, or whether it's just because that's what Common Joe thinks.