It also happens on the right and probably every kind of tight social circle. Like Real Redpilled Men don't eat lab grown meat, no argument why, they just don't. If it did not bleed, it is not man food enough.
Anyhow, it means there is two kinds of left (also two kinds of right and two kinds of everything) those people who are tightly in a left social circle, and people who are aloof and take their leftist views from books. I am of the second type, a James C. Scott anarchist with a hint of Marxian analysis, and this is why I might look different. I have no social circles, I don't even hear about the Current Thing.
Though I admit that while the problem exists everywhere, on the whole the left is a bit more social, because high status people socalize a lot and they tend to be on the left. But I am not high status and don't ever want to be, so I really don't care what the people of the artsy cocktail parties think. I care more about books.
I other words please do not confuse the left with its subset: the high status people and their imitators. You will often find they are not even left, they are liberal, and most of their liberalism is just a speech code, and etiquette, you know, those who rename homeless people unhoused persons, but still not giving a fuck about providing them with homes. Those people don't deserve to be called "left", one EARNS the "left" label with compassion for the weak.
Look I'm just going to be charitable and keep modeling leftists as evil demons, instead of the soulless moral voids you portray them as. It's less depressing.
I have read your Reddit post and "implication of a pre-existing consensus" stood out to me. I've seen it on Reddit about ten years ago. It is when one writes a long analytical argument and the response is "wow, just wow". Another similar response was just quoting a subsentence without a commentary, just pointing out that this is obviously bad and all good people get it why, no explanation necessary, just finger-pointing.
I can tell you honestly this has been the most enraging and infuriating thing I've ever seen online, and I can't even explain why. Probably because it brought back all the memories of being excluded from the cool kids club AND NOT BEING TOLD WHY. Because the purpose of exclusion is exclusion and not giving people a recipe of how to be cool. And the tactics were similar - just echoing back something one said, in a sarcastic tone.
And, you know, that is how school shootings happen.
I was so angry, I was dreaming of violence. If I would not have been already committed to a number of leftist issues like ending world hunger through financing the UN, it could be have pushed me Alt-Right.
Because that is genuinely one of the worst ways to make people feel low status. Telling people "you are a monster because you believe X" is FAR better, because it suggests you could redeem yourself by changing. This sort of thing implies you are damned forever and you will never even ever understand why, while all the elect are supposed to immediately GET it.
Basically I would like to say never do this, because it is the most possible divisive thing. It is what turns opponents into mortal enemies and if they are unhinged enough, terrorists.
The maximum allowable low-statusing should be something like "people who believe X are monsters".
I mean this very seriously. This tactic could create incredible amounts of violence because it triggers the worst memories of every uncool kid ever, all those now well-supressed memories of nights spent dreaming of bloody torture, it triggers every possible insecurity and so on. Never do this. This is a sort of a social nuclear weapon with incredibly bad side-effects. At the minimum tell people why they suck.
Online leftist behaviours like this are essentially about being former nerds who now get license to be the popular mean cool kids. The amount of times they say "bullying works" is evidence. I'm gonna write about this in a lot more detail eventually.
It also happens on the right and probably every kind of tight social circle. Like Real Redpilled Men don't eat lab grown meat, no argument why, they just don't. If it did not bleed, it is not man food enough.
Anyhow, it means there is two kinds of left (also two kinds of right and two kinds of everything) those people who are tightly in a left social circle, and people who are aloof and take their leftist views from books. I am of the second type, a James C. Scott anarchist with a hint of Marxian analysis, and this is why I might look different. I have no social circles, I don't even hear about the Current Thing.
Though I admit that while the problem exists everywhere, on the whole the left is a bit more social, because high status people socalize a lot and they tend to be on the left. But I am not high status and don't ever want to be, so I really don't care what the people of the artsy cocktail parties think. I care more about books.
I other words please do not confuse the left with its subset: the high status people and their imitators. You will often find they are not even left, they are liberal, and most of their liberalism is just a speech code, and etiquette, you know, those who rename homeless people unhoused persons, but still not giving a fuck about providing them with homes. Those people don't deserve to be called "left", one EARNS the "left" label with compassion for the weak.
Look I'm just going to be charitable and keep modeling leftists as evil demons, instead of the soulless moral voids you portray them as. It's less depressing.
I have read your Reddit post and "implication of a pre-existing consensus" stood out to me. I've seen it on Reddit about ten years ago. It is when one writes a long analytical argument and the response is "wow, just wow". Another similar response was just quoting a subsentence without a commentary, just pointing out that this is obviously bad and all good people get it why, no explanation necessary, just finger-pointing.
I can tell you honestly this has been the most enraging and infuriating thing I've ever seen online, and I can't even explain why. Probably because it brought back all the memories of being excluded from the cool kids club AND NOT BEING TOLD WHY. Because the purpose of exclusion is exclusion and not giving people a recipe of how to be cool. And the tactics were similar - just echoing back something one said, in a sarcastic tone.
And, you know, that is how school shootings happen.
I was so angry, I was dreaming of violence. If I would not have been already committed to a number of leftist issues like ending world hunger through financing the UN, it could be have pushed me Alt-Right.
Because that is genuinely one of the worst ways to make people feel low status. Telling people "you are a monster because you believe X" is FAR better, because it suggests you could redeem yourself by changing. This sort of thing implies you are damned forever and you will never even ever understand why, while all the elect are supposed to immediately GET it.
Basically I would like to say never do this, because it is the most possible divisive thing. It is what turns opponents into mortal enemies and if they are unhinged enough, terrorists.
The maximum allowable low-statusing should be something like "people who believe X are monsters".
I mean this very seriously. This tactic could create incredible amounts of violence because it triggers the worst memories of every uncool kid ever, all those now well-supressed memories of nights spent dreaming of bloody torture, it triggers every possible insecurity and so on. Never do this. This is a sort of a social nuclear weapon with incredibly bad side-effects. At the minimum tell people why they suck.
Online leftist behaviours like this are essentially about being former nerds who now get license to be the popular mean cool kids. The amount of times they say "bullying works" is evidence. I'm gonna write about this in a lot more detail eventually.