6 ms·

> it provides the leftist It's no different than the far-right unfalsifiable standards that were enforced for centuries, more often than not with religious ove

> it provides the leftist It's no different than the far-right unfalsifiable standards that were enforced for centuries, more often than not with religious overtones. Let's not pretend this is a left/right thing, so much as it's just an extremist thing. Only now, the leftist is using the outrage tactic just as effectively as the right, which has lost a lot of its moral high ground on most social issues.

toyg 5y ago
Yeah. Tbh it reminds me very much of the classic LBJ quote "let's make him deny it".
rurban 5y ago
Exactly. I identify as strict antifascist and leftist, but cannot understand why the extremist social justice warriors are identified as leftist. Eg there was this citation by them > creates a “not safe work environment.” On the contrary, calling for censorship and heated nonscientific, political discussion on the workplace, esp. against conservatives, creates a non safe work environment. It also cripples science. Formerly they were called out as religious zealots, not leftists.
nandhinianand 5y ago
Exactly... wanted to say this... I don't subscribe to the left vs right dichotomy to begin with, but "kafkatrapping" is a tactic used by both sides. When I was reading the link, I was reminded of a ex-colleague, who thought my transition was wrong because it is pandering to the inherent evil in me. Ah...
vmception 5y ago
Agreed and I dislike how these conversations just embolden people to invite us into their right wing filter bubble after they see our dissatisfaction with left wing filter bubbles For now I’m satisfied with the reversion to the mean of not talking politics at work
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I kind of agree with this—one of my main criticisms of left-wing ideology is that it so closely resembles right-wing ideology, and it certainly seems to push a lot of people toward the right wing. In particular the intense left-wing pressure to suppress any frank, unscripted conversations about race leaves a lot of “ideologically vulnerable” people with nowhere to turn with respect to their questions than the welcoming embrace of right wing folks, which unsurprisingly swells their ranks. All of this intense left-wing bad behavior similarly gives right wing folks a sense of moral license to behave badly as well (for just one example, think of how the media and other prominent voices profusely excused and justified BLM riots all summer long and the precedent that probably set for the 1/6 riot). “Reversion to the mean” is probably a good thing insofar as it means “moderating ourselves”.
jb775 5y ago
> It's no different than the far-right unfalsifiable standards that were enforced for centuries Not sure what you mean. Examples? I wouldn't say it's an extremist thing, considering the Kafkatrap setup tactic is being actively used by people with different degrees of leftness. It applies to any topic where one person/group claims/claimed to be a victim in any way/shape/form. My source article explains in detail.
- dlivingston 5y ago
  A number of examples come to mind, but the most prominent is the Red Scare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Not probably your point, but I’ve always found comparisons between the present moral panic and the Red Scare to be interesting. Notably, the extreme measures and intense paranoia of the Red Scare took place against the backdrop of a credible existential threat—global thermonuclear war. We now have the benefit of hindsight, but it wasn’t clear to people at the time that the situation would stabilize, which is to say their extreme measures make some amount of sense (I can sympathize with abandoning lofty liberal ideals in such a moment). On the other hand, the current moral panic has no similar justification—it’s a naked power grab by a group of ideological authoritarians who can’t even be bothered to pretend to act in accordance with their own stated beliefs. Neither the RS nor the present panic are rightful, but one is at least sorta understandable.
    - ryanbrunner 5y ago
      That really all depends on your definition of what constitutes a credible threat. I'm sure any activist would say that continued police brutality against minorities, widespread and increasing hate crimes, etc. represent a credible threat to affected populations. We can argue about how genuine / common these threats really are, but at the end of the day I think it's fair to say at the absolute minimum that activists genuinely believe they are threats.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

toyg 5y ago

Yeah. Tbh it reminds me very much of the classic LBJ quote "let's make him deny it".

rurban 5y ago

Exactly. I identify as strict antifascist and leftist, but cannot understand why the extremist social justice warriors are identified as leftist. Eg there was this citation by them > creates a “not safe work environment.” On the contrary, calling for censorship and heated nonscientific, political discussion on the workplace, esp. against conservatives, creates a non safe work environment. It also cripples science. Formerly they were called out as religious zealots, not leftists.

nandhinianand 5y ago

Exactly... wanted to say this... I don't subscribe to the left vs right dichotomy to begin with, but "kafkatrapping" is a tactic used by both sides. When I was reading the link, I was reminded of a ex-colleague, who thought my transition was wrong because it is pandering to the inherent evil in me. Ah...

vmception 5y ago

Agreed and I dislike how these conversations just embolden people to invite us into their right wing filter bubble after they see our dissatisfaction with left wing filter bubbles For now I’m satisfied with the reversion to the mean of not talking politics at work

throwaway894345 5y ago
I kind of agree with this—one of my main criticisms of left-wing ideology is that it so closely resembles right-wing ideology, and it certainly seems to push a lot of people toward the right wing. In particular the intense left-wing pressure to suppress any frank, unscripted conversations about race leaves a lot of “ideologically vulnerable” people with nowhere to turn with respect to their questions than the welcoming embrace of right wing folks, which unsurprisingly swells their ranks. All of this intense left-wing bad behavior similarly gives right wing folks a sense of moral license to behave badly as well (for just one example, think of how the media and other prominent voices profusely excused and justified BLM riots all summer long and the precedent that probably set for the 1/6 riot). “Reversion to the mean” is probably a good thing insofar as it means “moderating ourselves”.

jb775 5y ago

> It's no different than the far-right unfalsifiable standards that were enforced for centuries Not sure what you mean. Examples? I wouldn't say it's an extremist thing, considering the Kafkatrap setup tactic is being actively used by people with different degrees of leftness. It applies to any topic where one person/group claims/claimed to be a victim in any way/shape/form. My source article explains in detail.

dlivingston 5y ago
A number of examples come to mind, but the most prominent is the Red Scare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Not probably your point, but I’ve always found comparisons between the present moral panic and the Red Scare to be interesting. Notably, the extreme measures and intense paranoia of the Red Scare took place against the backdrop of a credible existential threat—global thermonuclear war. We now have the benefit of hindsight, but it wasn’t clear to people at the time that the situation would stabilize, which is to say their extreme measures make some amount of sense (I can sympathize with abandoning lofty liberal ideals in such a moment). On the other hand, the current moral panic has no similar justification—it’s a naked power grab by a group of ideological authoritarians who can’t even be bothered to pretend to act in accordance with their own stated beliefs. Neither the RS nor the present panic are rightful, but one is at least sorta understandable.
  - ryanbrunner 5y ago
    That really all depends on your definition of what constitutes a credible threat. I'm sure any activist would say that continued police brutality against minorities, widespread and increasing hate crimes, etc. represent a credible threat to affected populations. We can argue about how genuine / common these threats really are, but at the end of the day I think it's fair to say at the absolute minimum that activists genuinely believe they are threats.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]