6 ms·

What a mess. In small tribes social control can be directly maintained as members have perfect knowledge of any individual’s reputation. This mechanism doesn’t

What a mess. In small tribes social control can be directly maintained as members have perfect knowledge of any individual’s reputation. This mechanism doesn’t scale beyond a few hundred individuals so institutions such as hierarchical organized religion were invented. We have established words (oppression) and jargon (social control) for this already. The author has decorated an old concept with new jargon and is passes it off as original thinking. Notably, every instance of oppression mentioned (beyond the Aboriginal example) involve large and necessary institutional components. Insanely, Rodriguez points to two computer-mediated social control as examples of “horizontal totalitarianism” apparently not noticing that Facebook and China’s Social Credit bureaucracy are each enormous and expensive institutions. One wonders why Rodriguez is even bothering. Thankfully he answers this question for us near the end of his piece: > This phenomenon can be observed in the actions of existing successful public silencing initiatives, which confront questions and divergent opinions with insults, as seen in the unfortunate social media lynchings perpetrated in recent years by fanaticised supporters of MeToo or Black Lives Matter, or by similar movements with equally extreme ideologies. Ah. Rodriguez resents progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy (presumably because Rodriguez enjoys exerting social control far more than experiencing it) and has coined this new jargon to associate movements he dislikes with a reviled term (totalitarianism) Rodriguez begins with an intellectual lie, then uses it to advance the idea that anti-racist and anti-misogynist movements are the actual oppressors. And not the misogynists and racists themselves. What motivation might Rodriguez have for asserting such a thing?

pineaux 6y ago
I was typing a similar response, before I saw your better articulated one. Thank you.
baryphonic 6y ago
> Ah. Rodriguez resents progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy (presumably because Rodriguez enjoys exerting social control far more than experiencing it) and has coined this new jargon to associate movements he dislikes with a reviled term (totalitarianism) > > Rodriguez begins with an intellectual lie, then uses it to advance the idea that anti-racist and anti-misogynist movements are the actual oppressors. And not the misogynists and racists themselves. What evidence is there that progressive movements are actually seeking to upend anything? Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century, and have this been influential in the rest of the West. As far as I can tell, progressive movements like BLM and MeToo are absolutely attempting to preserve the existing order. After all, these movements and groups are well-funded by the very people you suggest they are trying to take down. These movements and groups (and you?) appear to cheer 1% of the population holding 99% of the wealth as long as that 1% is 50% female, 14% black, 5% percent LGBT or whatever, etc. The intellectual lie you begin with is that progressives don't already have a complete monopoly over the relevant cultural power. EDIT: > Insanely, Rodriguez points to... Also, if I were you, I might be cautious about using the I-word. It's already banned from being in any commits at Google.
- knolax 6y ago
  > Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    > Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s. Progressive movements in general, not BLM and MeToo in particular. The Atlantic, The New Republic, the American Economics Association, Planned Parenthood and many other Progressive organizations have been around for over a century. BLM is a particular instance of the sort of "third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement. (The first wave Progressives wanted nothing to do with civil rights, and most were virulent and unrepentant racists like Woodrow Wilson or Margaret Sanger. The second wave was based around the welfare state and neutrality on racial issues, and included FDR, Harry Truman and the New Deal coalition. All three groups advocate for nearly identical policies, and yet have contradictory stated goals.)
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Explain how "existing" is the same as the original "controlling".
    - knolax 6y ago
      > third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement. > The first wave Progressives wanted nothing to do with civil rights, and most were virulent and unrepentant racists > All three groups advocate for nearly identical policies All three of these statements can't be true at once.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        They use "based on" to mean "using a stated goal of "expanding the civil rights movement" as a justification for their policies [despite those policies being nearly identical the policies advocated by first wave Progressives]", not to claim that third wave Progressives actually act in manner consistent with "expanding the civil rights movement" as a terminal goal.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
> progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy They seek to advance the interests of people on top of the current social hierarchy. Most stakeholders who have influence on modern society seem to support these movements and don’t feel threatened by it.
YPCrumble 6y ago
Ad hominem attacks like this one calling him insane and questioning his ethics illustrate the author’s thesis quite effectively.
- evgen 6y ago
  The intellectually dishonesty is quite apparent. Questioning his ethics and motivations is not a particularly difficult leap given the mediocre argument presented. If you think it supports the author's stated thesis (and not the hidden these of "why don't these people agree with my opinions and stop forcing me to question my own role in the current structure") then perhaps you need to work on your critical thinking skills.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    > then perhaps you need to work on your critical thinking skills The irony here is palpable. You replied to an accusation of ad hominem with a very salient point and then followed it up with vapid rhetoric that taints your analysis with the same level of bias as the article author.
  - lr4444lr 6y ago
    So what substance of Rodriguez's argument do you actually disagree with, then?
    - unabst 6y ago
      Exactly. Really wish we could have constructive discussions about ideas again without these vigilantes interrupting every conversation and scaring people away.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Don't you see how this response demonstrates the author's point? We're in an intellectual environment where people routinely scan for deviations from cultural norms - where hints that the author might secretly believe bad things are considered a strong form of argument. It's hard to meaningfully dispute the social consensus among one's peers in such an environment.
unabst 6y ago
If you have issues with the ideas or know of similar ideas with different names then let's have it. But what is it with this mind reading and character lynching? What could be your motivation and why do you even bother? > spanktheuser Oh, nm. What a shame. You seem like a smart bloke.
civilized 6y ago
Your criticism seems sloppy. "Social control" and "oppression" can come from peers or superiors, so they don't pick out the concept the author is interested in, which is specifically horizontal (peer) social control. That may not be a new concept - off the top of my head, I know Orwell wrote a lot about it - but you don't even seem to understand what the topic of the article is. You are upset about one sentence in the article, one that I also happen to disagree with. And on that basis, this sloppy dismissal of the whole piece? Lame.
erulabs 6y ago
I'm not sure it's fair to say the statement: "<actions> perpetrated in recent years by fanaticised supporters of <group>" is the same as suggesting <group> is an oppressor. One can criticize the Red Terror, for example, without criticizing socialism - if that makes sense. At any rate, even if I agreed with you, this idea of finding someones "secret motivations" and condemning them for it instantly loses me - there is plenty of good ground to fight on without guessing and accusations.

pineaux 6y ago

I was typing a similar response, before I saw your better articulated one. Thank you.

baryphonic 6y ago

> Ah. Rodriguez resents progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy (presumably because Rodriguez enjoys exerting social control far more than experiencing it) and has coined this new jargon to associate movements he dislikes with a reviled term (totalitarianism) > > Rodriguez begins with an intellectual lie, then uses it to advance the idea that anti-racist and anti-misogynist movements are the actual oppressors. And not the misogynists and racists themselves. What evidence is there that progressive movements are actually seeking to upend anything? Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century, and have this been influential in the rest of the West. As far as I can tell, progressive movements like BLM and MeToo are absolutely attempting to preserve the existing order. After all, these movements and groups are well-funded by the very people you suggest they are trying to take down. These movements and groups (and you?) appear to cheer 1% of the population holding 99% of the wealth as long as that 1% is 50% female, 14% black, 5% percent LGBT or whatever, etc. The intellectual lie you begin with is that progressives don't already have a complete monopoly over the relevant cultural power. EDIT: > Insanely, Rodriguez points to... Also, if I were you, I might be cautious about using the I-word. It's already banned from being in any commits at Google.

knolax 6y ago
> Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s. Progressive movements in general, not BLM and MeToo in particular. The Atlantic, The New Republic, the American Economics Association, Planned Parenthood and many other Progressive organizations have been around for over a century. BLM is a particular instance of the sort of "third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement. (The first wave Progressives wanted nothing to do with civil rights, and most were virulent and unrepentant racists like Woodrow Wilson or Margaret Sanger. The second wave was based around the welfare state and neutrality on racial issues, and included FDR, Harry Truman and the New Deal coalition. All three groups advocate for nearly identical policies, and yet have contradictory stated goals.)
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Explain how "existing" is the same as the original "controlling".
  - knolax 6y ago
    > third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement. > The first wave Progressives wanted nothing to do with civil rights, and most were virulent and unrepentant racists > All three groups advocate for nearly identical policies All three of these statements can't be true at once.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      They use "based on" to mean "using a stated goal of "expanding the civil rights movement" as a justification for their policies [despite those policies being nearly identical the policies advocated by first wave Progressives]", not to claim that third wave Progressives actually act in manner consistent with "expanding the civil rights movement" as a terminal goal.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

> progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy They seek to advance the interests of people on top of the current social hierarchy. Most stakeholders who have influence on modern society seem to support these movements and don’t feel threatened by it.

YPCrumble 6y ago

Ad hominem attacks like this one calling him insane and questioning his ethics illustrate the author’s thesis quite effectively.

evgen 6y ago
The intellectually dishonesty is quite apparent. Questioning his ethics and motivations is not a particularly difficult leap given the mediocre argument presented. If you think it supports the author's stated thesis (and not the hidden these of "why don't these people agree with my opinions and stop forcing me to question my own role in the current structure") then perhaps you need to work on your critical thinking skills.
- akiselev 6y ago
  > then perhaps you need to work on your critical thinking skills The irony here is palpable. You replied to an accusation of ad hominem with a very salient point and then followed it up with vapid rhetoric that taints your analysis with the same level of bias as the article author.
- lr4444lr 6y ago
  So what substance of Rodriguez's argument do you actually disagree with, then?
  - unabst 6y ago
    Exactly. Really wish we could have constructive discussions about ideas again without these vigilantes interrupting every conversation and scaring people away.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Don't you see how this response demonstrates the author's point? We're in an intellectual environment where people routinely scan for deviations from cultural norms - where hints that the author might secretly believe bad things are considered a strong form of argument. It's hard to meaningfully dispute the social consensus among one's peers in such an environment.

unabst 6y ago

If you have issues with the ideas or know of similar ideas with different names then let's have it. But what is it with this mind reading and character lynching? What could be your motivation and why do you even bother? > spanktheuser Oh, nm. What a shame. You seem like a smart bloke.

civilized 6y ago

Your criticism seems sloppy. "Social control" and "oppression" can come from peers or superiors, so they don't pick out the concept the author is interested in, which is specifically horizontal (peer) social control. That may not be a new concept - off the top of my head, I know Orwell wrote a lot about it - but you don't even seem to understand what the topic of the article is. You are upset about one sentence in the article, one that I also happen to disagree with. And on that basis, this sloppy dismissal of the whole piece? Lame.

erulabs 6y ago

I'm not sure it's fair to say the statement: "<actions> perpetrated in recent years by fanaticised supporters of <group>" is the same as suggesting <group> is an oppressor. One can criticize the Red Terror, for example, without criticizing socialism - if that makes sense. At any rate, even if I agreed with you, this idea of finding someones "secret motivations" and condemning them for it instantly loses me - there is plenty of good ground to fight on without guessing and accusations.