13 ms·
Chess Grandmaster Kasparov on Mob Mentality and Groupthink
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- WalterGR 5y agoActual title: ‘Woke’ Is a Bad Word for a Real Threat to American Democracy
- dandotway 5y agohttps://archive.ph/Jdjb9 https://archive.ph/Jdjb9
- blub 5y agoIf I do a search on ddg on this site without entering any search terms (site:archive.ph) I get results about child nudity… Can somebody please post the article or post a trustworthy link?
- dandotway 5y agoarchive.ph is one of the archive.today domains. I got the archive.ph link using the archive.today Chrome extension. By "child nudity" do you mean illegal child sex abuse materials? If yes, might want to notify the archive.today maintainers that their archive is being illegally misused. I'm afraid to investigate your claim and try clicking any links in case there really is illegal kiddie content.
- heresie-dabord 5y agoYour link works as you intended.
- blub 5y agoIf I keep running the search several times in a row, sometimes I get results about escorts, nudity (not clear if illegal just by the DDG small text blurb), etc. and the other times I get normal news. DDG likely has an issue with this website, but I won’t investigate this further either.
- raxi 5y agolikely people used to search "site:archive.ph something weird" just before you. Isn't that what privacy-oriented search engines are for?
- jdkee 5y agoDidn't he just promote an NFT earlier today?
- Dma54rhs 5y agoWhat does it have to do with the subject even if he did? He is not writing about nft's?
- stefan_ 5y agoYes, why be suspicious of someone willing to put his name and picture on every blockchain scam out there like some Instagram influencer? He is also of course the "Avast security ambassador" and tours the world visiting the kinds of conferences where not very important people meet other not very important people telling each other they are very important, like the "WebSummit" or "TechCrunch Disrupt".
- groby_b 5y agoGoes to critical thinking ability.
- systemvoltage 5y agoWhat's wrong with NFT's and it feels like incredibly condescending take to call anyone who supports NFTs lacking critical thinking. If someone is lacking critical thinking, you might want to ask that question to yourself.
- bastardoperator 5y agoSupport NFT? With what? Large sums of cash...
- gunapologist99 5y agoRegardless of your opinions on his beliefs, it seems a stretch to accuse one of the greatest chess minds in history of a failure of critical thinking.
- spoonjim 5y agoWhat does Kasparov know about Mob Mentality and Groupthink more than anyone else?
- commandlinefan 5y agoHe grew up in soviet Russia, and they honed this rhetorical tactic to perfection. He knows what it's like to live in the aftermath of its "success" and has seen the end result as well.
- greenail 5y agoI wish there was more education about what happened after 1917 in Russia. I've read the gulag archipelago and while that is an amazing work not many will endeavor to read it. My education on the topic in school did not do a good job describing how the culture was manipulated or how fear was used to divide the population. There are important lessons learned that should never be forgotten.
- Kranar 5y agoThe guy ran for political office in Russia and now lives in exile after having numerous threats to his life for holding certain political views.
- tut-urut-utut 5y agoHe tried to make a coup ffs. Armed rebellion which was not successful. And he’s still alive.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- newacct583 5y agoThe first example cites what I guess is an attempted cancellation of Peter Thiel: > In his recent book “The Contrarian,” journalist Max Chafkin assigns an ideology to Mr. Thiel, then defines it as “fascist” and even tries to blame this concocted “Thielism” for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. There is little doubt that the book would never have come to be had Mr. Thiel not supported Donald Trump in 2016. I mean, OK. I guess it's probably unfair. But... to cite this kind of thing as an example of censorious excess and the decline of society and not at least nod to Thiel's own successful cancellation and destruction of Gawker media seems... logically suspect. I mean, who is it not OK to destroy for ideological reasons and who is fair game?
- fallingknife 5y agoGawker was not "cancelled.". It was driven to bankruptcy by losing a massive defamation lawsuit. They brought it on themselves.
- kadoban 5y agoSeems a lot like it's only "cancelled" if the target is right-wing.
- fallingknife 5y agoThey got to make their case in open court and lost. That's like saying Derek Chauvin was "cancelled."
- kadoban 5y agoThe court system is not particularly equal if you piss off a billionare. And Thiel just went and found something to sue about because he didn't like Gawker's _other_ coverage.
- fallingknife 5y agoDefamation is illegal and should be illegal. Publications that go around exposing the details of famous people's private lives are trash and nothing of value was lost. This type of lawsuit should happen more often
- fishtoaster 5y agoIf you want to hear more of his view, including some solid rebuttals, I highly recommend IntelligenceSquared, a debate series that gets published as a podcast. They cover motions from culture to science to politics across the spectrum and usually get excellent, well-informed debaters on both sides. Their most recent one was "Cancel Culture is Toxic"[0] and Kasparov was arguing in favor of the motion. While I ultimately disagree with the motion, I think Kasparov and Kmele Foster (mostly Kmele, really) made the stronger case. And regardless, it was a fascinating and well-argued discussion of the sort you almost never see around topics like "cancel culture." Well worth a listen. [0] https://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/cancel-culture-toxic https://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/cancel-culture-tox...
- javajosh 5y agoYou felt the anti-woke side made the stronger case, but you still disagree? Can you add some more detail here?
- civilized 5y agoThe challenge with this debate is that the meaning of "cancel culture" is too broad, verging on incoherent. Examples of "cancellation" range from people who experienced harsh consequences for minimal or imaginary "offenses", like Justine Sacco and Donald McNeil, to powerful serial sex offenders like Harvey Weinstein.
- tomp 5y agoBut surely you can simultaneously think that Weinstein shouldn't have been cancelled (mostly by his almost-equally perverted friends who dropped him like hot lava when he started becoming toxic, to save their own reputations, after having cozied up to him for years/decades) and still think he should be charged/jailed for actual crimes by actual justice system.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoSure, you could, but that seems a little perverse by itself. Choosing to remain friends with someone you know you to be the serial perpetrator of sexual assault while also favoring their conviction and imprisonment seems ... odd, at best. What makes the Weinstein case difficult are the widespread claims that lots of people in Weinstein's circle did know what he was doing, and did not (a) report him (b) dissassociate from him. Their lack of willingness to report him (let alone their willingness to actively aid him) means that they are not part of the category described above. [ EDITED because my final sentence was a clear logical error, but is now correct. ]
- glangdale 5y ago> Schools are being pressured to remove books and cancel professors for spreading the “wrong” ideas. These sentiments are all too familiar to me, and to anyone who has survived life in a dictatorship. The only answer is more freedom, more speech, not less. This is a good sentiment, but it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of pressure to "cancel" books and academics is directed at the left by the right, regardless of what gets column inches and think-pieces.
- oh_sigh 5y agoIs it? Anecdotally, I see a lot of news about conservatives trying to "cancel" books in their kids libraries whose topics they don't like, but regarding professors, it seems like those getting cancelled are getting cancelled by the left, not the right.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dragontamer 5y agohttps://www.texastribune.org/2010/03/22/sboe-removes-thomas-jefferson-blames-media/ https://www.texastribune.org/2010/03/22/sboe-removes-thomas-... https://archive.thinkprogress.org/texas-board-of-education-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks-477678f05e7f/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/texas-board-of-education-c... Thomas Jefferson was successfully removed from all Texas schoolbooks, as one example of many. The Right is no stranger to censorship.
- stevenicr 5y agoYou got me to wonder, thanks for providing the links. I have seen stories recently about removing Jefferson from the public view / cancelling him, based upon far-left / progressive / anti-racist/slavery ideals (I think/assume) that are removing monuments around the country (and murals and building names, etc), not right-wing censorship, so I was quite curious. sadly some of the supporting links are 404 on the thinkprogress page you linked to. However reading the texas tribune article it says that Jefferson was not removed from all Texas schoolbooks, it says that he was removed from a list of 'revolutionary thinkers' - the other references were all left in. - So this is kind of a red herring thing? From the TexasTribune Article you linked: "the Colbert Report got the board's move technically correct, noting it removed Jefferson from a list of "revolutionary thinkers," which is exactly what the board did. Colbert simply didn't provide the context that Jefferson was mentioned elsewhere. (Colbert, of course, is comedy and can't be held to journalistic standards.) " ... "None of the news stories from the day in The Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News (which share state coverage), the Austin American-Statesman, and The Texas Tribune (that's me) mentioned the Jefferson amendment, much less asserted he had been removed entirely from the curriculum. " Not that I disagree that "The Right is no stranger to censorship." - however this is not a good example for such, and perhaps the bigger debate should center around what tactics of censoring should be out of bounds, and example of such from different 'sides'. Although it becomes tougher to paint sides when we have to wonder if a twitter mob is a side? if none of the leaders of a side are advocating for thing X - and which leaders are actual leaders of a side, and which influencers are a thing, and if 'leaders' denounce an influencer, then does it really count for/against a 'side'.. much to consider with all this.
- sleepysysadmin 5y agoGotta love Kasparov. I think he's wrong about black lives matter. He's right that it's a required movement, but he's wrong that it's about power. In fact it's the opposite. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2014-10-18%202021-11-18&geo=US&q=black%20lives%20matter https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2014-10-18%202... black lives matter only exists during the election. And what do they have to show for it? Nothing at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_Justice_in_Policing_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_Justice_in_Polici... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_Law_Enforcement_Trust_and_Integrity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_Law_Enforcement_T... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Qualified_Immunity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Qualified_Immunity_Act Nothing at all passed. They control the house and never actually passed the legislation. They know they have no power at all. In fact the only person to have done anything for the black community was an exceutive order. https://cops.usdoj.gov/SafePolicingEO https://cops.usdoj.gov/SafePolicingEO Black lives matter organizers know the democrats aren't doing anything for them. This is in the context of a clear humanitarian crisis. They are actively harming their own goals. Why would they do that?
- javajosh 5y agoBLM's problem[1] is that it's a national movement about local problems. It's city cops, not the FBI, that kill people with impunity. The presidential election is generally not the right place to take action, IMHO [2]. In any event, it seems to me that BLM should focus on police money, and ways to put that money in the hands of people who feel that killing unarmed civilians is wrong, the militarization of the police is wrong, and who is willing to peel off some of that money to fund wholly independent police accountability policies, and non-police solutions to community problems (e.g. community intervention, mental health, etc.) [1] I am highly supportive of BLM, but even more so of the implied general movement toward police accountability. Blacks get it more than the rest of us, but everyone is victimized, regularly, to greater or lesser degrees, by a totally unaccountable police force. [2] Except in the unlikely event that one of the candidates is overtly racist, approves of violent behavior, and even pardons military and law enforcement personel convicted of murder and torture. Of course, such a candidate would never be a problem in the USA. We're too good for that.)
- peter_retief 5y ago[flagged]
- amusedcyclist 5y agoGet help
- bsansouci 5y agoI don't know much about this, but "Democracy has never been a safe space" seems to be the key: that healthy disagreement, debate and compromises are not easy, not comfortable, and well... not the ideal (in the literal sense), but is necessary, because we should respect the other side, continue to assume they're not evil, and find some damn compromises. (at the time of the creation of the US's declaration of independence, there were big ideological differences between the north and south of the US, but folks like John Adams understood that compromising was better than being divided, so the north said: ok for slavery and other stuff, but you gotta sign to be in this together, and we'll work on it. I would recommend John Adams' biography by David McCullough for a good account of how politics back then was basically the same garbage fire as today, except the early presidents were educated and smart, and recognized that partisanship was a bad idea). It might be that we've all become a bit tired from shouting the same things without seeing much progress. As if the left burned out from trying to convince people of the values of science, of socialism, or helping the less fortunate and so, as a result, is now playing the game of forcing the hand, almost apathetically. The article is free on his website by the way: https://www.kasparov.com/woke-is-a-bad-word-for-a-real-threat-to-american-democracy-wsj-opinion-november-17-2021/ https://www.kasparov.com/woke-is-a-bad-word-for-a-real-threa...
- ammonammonammon 5y agoCan't take a man seriously that is so rabidly russophobic. He is too emotional and irrational - makes for a great activist though. Just doesn't sell well when an informed and more cerebral audience is confronted.
- tester756 5y agoWhat makes you think so? Ain't he more anti-Putin that russophobic?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoI like Kasparov on Twitter. I think this article is bullshit. He starts by citing two responses from what he considers to be people he disagrees with. These are "it's not happening" and "it happens only to bad people". He never actually addresses these claims directly, and instead heads off on tangential matters. Kasparov appears (probably correctly) to be worried about "groupthink". Yet who can point me to a position that has actually been silenced? Those who believe in the lab theory, that vaccines are toxic, that covid19 is a hoax - these people all have hundreds of thousands if not millions of people reading, listening, watching presentations of these views. Are they a broadcast TV network? No. Are they on MSNBC? No. But how on earth can anyone seriously make the claim that these sort of views (or any others) are excluded from public consideration? The major reason why only 58-60% of the US is vaccinated against COVID-19, for example, is precisely that anti-vaccination viewpoints have been widely distributed and viewed, despite being completely non-establishment. Kasparov cites Thiel as someone who has apparently suffered from "the politics of personal destruction". Excuse me, but just how has Thiel suffered? He still publishes books, appears in what I can only assume is as wide a selection of media as he chooses to (given his historically rather reticent public persona), is frequently asked for comments about matters he appears to the world to be knowledgeable about, and continues to enjoy the benefits of his prodigious wealth (including that IRA). Then Kasparov dives into lab-leak theory, and the way that many people considered this theory to be "pro-Trump". If his point was merely that it was rather pre-emptive to declare this idea false, it would be an excellent point. However, that's not his point, and he chooses to ignore the way in which Trump attempted to use "the China virus" and the lab-leak theory as cover for his own administration's ineptitude, which creates a context in which a disdain for lab-leak theory is sort of inevitable. That context is arguably more important than anything else about this episode, particularly given that the origin story of SARS-COV-2 was always going to, and now is, receiving about as much scrutiny as anything like ever could (Chinese reluctance notwithstanding). If Kasparov had actually addressed "it's not happening" and "it only happens to bad people" effectively, maybe this would have been an interesting essay. Instead, I find it intellectually weak, and basically a great example of a conclusion ("there's a threat to free flow of ideas") in search of some rather weak evidence.
- RickJWagner 5y agoAs should be expected, Kasparov's logic is flawless. I hope people get it.
- newbie789 5y agoI forgot to buy this book! Thanks for the reminder, Gary!