7 ms·

> 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 extre

by 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.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      While those things are bad, I think we can agree that there is a difference between global thermonuclear warfare and police brutality and hate crimes. At the very least, GTNW is a literal existential threat for every person, while brutality and hate have been pretty normal in human history and liberalism is the antidote (indeed, the rich American liberal tradition is what makes hate and brutality seem so shocking)—giving up liberalism in the name of combatting hate is inappropriate, and IMO very likely the thing which drives up hate crimes in the first place (left wing behavior pushes many people to the right and sets up illiberal precedents for them to follow).
      - trasz 5y ago
        Of course - there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war. Police brutality, on the other hand, is real.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        That’s hindsight.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        >there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war This seems like an odd thing to say. Is it meant as sarcasm? Everyone has heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I won't say anything about that. But have you heard of the Sino-Soviet crisis of 1969? Allegedly (I'm neither a historian nor any other kind of authority on it) the USSR was going to launch nuclear missiles at China during a border dispute, and asked the Nixon administration to remain neutral. Instead, Kissinger replied that the US would nuke hundreds of Russian cities in response. This story appears to be reflective of the official Chinese Communist Party historical account. https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
        5y ago
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  You mean the first red scare or the one we had for the last four years because it “hurt Trump” to make all manner of connections to Russia?
tomnipotent 5y ago
Eric Raymond and Wendy McElroy are not thought leaders I'd turn to, and naming something doesn't make it true or turn it into an effective rhetorical device. There's a wide spectrum of human behavior and responses to these issues, and this takes a tiny sliver of that and tries to pain the rest with the same broad stroke. > Examples? In just the last few decades? We have immigration, women's propriety and reproductive rights, civil rights, and the LGBT movement to name a few. The outrage comes mostly from one side, which has their own arsenal of rhetorical devices to paint opposition as morally bankrupt reprobates. Support same-sex marriage? Closeted gay or un-Christian heathen, destroyer of families. Won't pledge allegiance to the flag? Must be a commie. Women deserve equal pay? What a beta simp. Both sides do and say stupid shit in their own stupid ways.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Both sides do and say stupid shit in their own stupid ways. The sad and hilarious thing is that both sides are often wrong in what they advocate, but often right in their criticism of the other side. It's probably easier to recognise bullshit in others (than in oneself and) than to get stuff right oneself. Since the "Kafka trap" thing isn't something he advocates but something he criticizes his opponents for using, I'd start from the assumption that it's among the (increasingly rare) things ESR is right on.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    People are great at giving advice to others, while failing to do the same for themselves. > things ESR is right on Except he's not. The entire existence of "kafkatrap" is to paint an enemy and argument that doesn't exist, taking some random train of thought to it's logical extreme. Considering his bigoted comments on women, Islam, and African American's, I have very little confidence that he's coming from a good place.

by jb775 5y ago

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.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    While those things are bad, I think we can agree that there is a difference between global thermonuclear warfare and police brutality and hate crimes. At the very least, GTNW is a literal existential threat for every person, while brutality and hate have been pretty normal in human history and liberalism is the antidote (indeed, the rich American liberal tradition is what makes hate and brutality seem so shocking)—giving up liberalism in the name of combatting hate is inappropriate, and IMO very likely the thing which drives up hate crimes in the first place (left wing behavior pushes many people to the right and sets up illiberal precedents for them to follow).
    - trasz 5y ago
      Of course - there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war. Police brutality, on the other hand, is real.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        That’s hindsight.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        >there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war This seems like an odd thing to say. Is it meant as sarcasm? Everyone has heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I won't say anything about that. But have you heard of the Sino-Soviet crisis of 1969? Allegedly (I'm neither a historian nor any other kind of authority on it) the USSR was going to launch nuclear missiles at China during a border dispute, and asked the Nixon administration to remain neutral. Instead, Kissinger replied that the US would nuke hundreds of Russian cities in response. This story appears to be reflective of the official Chinese Communist Party historical account. https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
        5y ago
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
You mean the first red scare or the one we had for the last four years because it “hurt Trump” to make all manner of connections to Russia?

tomnipotent 5y ago

Eric Raymond and Wendy McElroy are not thought leaders I'd turn to, and naming something doesn't make it true or turn it into an effective rhetorical device. There's a wide spectrum of human behavior and responses to these issues, and this takes a tiny sliver of that and tries to pain the rest with the same broad stroke. > Examples? In just the last few decades? We have immigration, women's propriety and reproductive rights, civil rights, and the LGBT movement to name a few. The outrage comes mostly from one side, which has their own arsenal of rhetorical devices to paint opposition as morally bankrupt reprobates. Support same-sex marriage? Closeted gay or un-Christian heathen, destroyer of families. Won't pledge allegiance to the flag? Must be a commie. Women deserve equal pay? What a beta simp. Both sides do and say stupid shit in their own stupid ways.

CRConrad 5y ago
> Both sides do and say stupid shit in their own stupid ways. The sad and hilarious thing is that both sides are often wrong in what they advocate, but often right in their criticism of the other side. It's probably easier to recognise bullshit in others (than in oneself and) than to get stuff right oneself. Since the "Kafka trap" thing isn't something he advocates but something he criticizes his opponents for using, I'd start from the assumption that it's among the (increasingly rare) things ESR is right on.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  People are great at giving advice to others, while failing to do the same for themselves. > things ESR is right on Except he's not. The entire existence of "kafkatrap" is to paint an enemy and argument that doesn't exist, taking some random train of thought to it's logical extreme. Considering his bigoted comments on women, Islam, and African American's, I have very little confidence that he's coming from a good place.