Argumentative Labelling

No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist.
– Dennis Prager

Ideologies pose a danger in that they not only limit their members, but outsiders as well. You obviously have to call your movement something. This is where things fall apart. All too often, the name of the ideology is used as a defense for it. Don’t approve of Black Lives Matter? You’re a racist! Don’t approve of a feminist idea? You must be a sexist! It is the ultimate non-argument, because it literally avoids any possible argument.

This is very important in opposing ideologies. For example, if you attack Democratic ideas, you must be a Republican. If you’re for Democratic ideas, you must be left-wing. This leaves the idea out of the question. You can’t debate the idea for what the idea is worth. You have to line yourself up with a particular ideology in order to debate it.

Another very important issue is “guilt by association” or just simple smearing. On Buzzfeed or other typical leftist sites, Republicans or conservatives are racist, sexist, bigots etc. So, if you are a Republican (or echo a conservative idea) you must be racist. The same thing happens to the alt-right and men’s rights activists. Yes, there are problems with these groups, but they do not give a true sense of the movement or ideas, as they are selected examples (new law: when media posts an article about trolls / “harassment” on the internet, and tweets are embedded, the tweets more often than not have 20 retweets/favorites or less). Of course, it still is ignoring the basis of the ideas. If the idea itself is bigoted, then why do you need to connect it to a movement? If the idea is so helpful and virtuous, can it not stand on its own?

It also leads to endless ad-hominems. “You are not a true conservative” or “you don’t understand the movement” is again ignoring the core idea. Why should I have to know everything about an ideology to criticize an idea that affects broad society? Of course, the person who claims to be a “true” part or that understands the movement, is the other person. It is a position that can not be argued against – because it is not an argument.

Outsiders are crucial , as the entire purpose of a movement or ideology is to attract those not in the movement, and create a positive perception (or so it would seem to an outsider). If someone not in your movement finds something off or generally does not agree, it can be used as a tool of recruitment. One can explain why their argument is flawed, or the movement could gain new insight for a problem. Of course, any internal or external disagreements lead to the collapse of an ideology, hence this behavior and the need for ideological preservation.

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

I’ll get back to the regular posts soon enough, but this case is just too good to pass up.

For those (somehow) unaware, Tyler Kissinger held a protest on May 30th, and is facing expulsion. The (failing) New York Times gave the following details:

He went in to Levi Hall without permission
He lied to security officers
He waited and let other unauthorized people in
He stormed the president’s office and staged a long-term sit-in

Of course, as someone who literally carries copies of the University of Chicago speech codes with me at all times, he did not comply with any of them. His behavior for sure disrupted the operations of the University. He also gained access to a building that he was not supposed to be in (why wold he wait and hide to let others in if that was not the case?). This is a private university. Any standard protections are gone. So, by all extents, he should be expelled. However, the “free speech activists” have come out of the woodwork to defend him.

This is a standard blatant leftist hypocrisy. If censorship or suppression of free speech goes to stop the violent and racist phrase “Trump 2016” or to shut down any other event, it’s perfectly fine! They’re all bigots! Yet, when a person breaks several rules in the name of a minimum wage, it is a problem. We should place contrived limits on freedom of speech, but when we literally break the actual limits of free speech, that’s perfectly great!

This thought process is incredibly dangerous. It is what leads to such things such as encouraging violence against Trump supporters and people saying that Black Lives Matter can’t lynch people (have we gone full regressive already?!). The “ends justify the means” mentality that is apparent here is despicable. You can’t be a half-activist of free speech. You can’t endorse free speech only when it helps your cause. Maybe I should denounce Trump and endorse Hillary. I can call anything I don’t like “hate speech”, and then commit literal crimes and be protected under the guise of progressiveness.

Bernie did endorse his behavior, but he’s just practicing endorsing criminals.

Why the DNC is screwed.

With Hillary’s indictment looming, the Democrats are in a pickle. Here is how things will most likely go down in every possible scenario.

Clinton is indicted, pardoned, and nominated: Complete disaster. Several FBI agents and other staff will resign. Obama will have his legacy tainted. Trump will be running against a literal criminal. It will be framed as if she wasn’t one, since she was not indicted (just like Bill Clinton is not considered impeached when he was not removed from office). Bernie supporters will all drop and never back her. Some of the Clinton voting block might stay home.

Bernie is nominated: Some of the Clinton camp will drop out and not support Bernie. Bernie is too far left for any reasonable person, and will alienate some of the Clinton block. He may revise some of his policies to be less socialist, but this will only alienate some of his voters. Trump destroys Bernie easily, regardless of polls. Just some reminders of Venezuela and that should be enough. It also depends who is VP. Elizabeth Warren is a death wish on any staff on the ticket.

Another candidate is nominated: The entire voting block is alienated due to feelings of disenfranchisement. Pathetically easily landslide for Trump. Biden is the safest option, but would have to make up for 1 year of lost time. Warren, again, is a death wish.

The Silent Mental Illness

I suspect that here theists and atheists would agree: Human beings have within them the ability to choose evil or good. We wake up each day facing the age-old struggle of good and evil. In some situations, mental illness clouds our judgment.

– Adam Hamilton

To say that leftism / feminism is a mental illness is politically incorrect, yet in some cases it really is true. Every possible explanation of the left’s behaviors can be determined by psychology and behavioral science. Obviously, not everyone who is a feminist / on the left is mentally unhealthy, but a decent majority of them may well be. Interestingly, feminism may be both the cause and the cure in these cases.

The “Coddled” Hypothesis

This is by far the most common explanation given. The overemphasis of danger causes parents to seek to remove all things that can be perceived as dangerous. Children are given strict representations of what is good. Anti-bullying efforts also go too far, citing that anything that makes kids “uncomfortable” is bullying. Obviously, insults are bullying. However, “uncomfortable” and “offensive” have very subjective meanings. Is anything “upsetting” bad? What if its an overreaction? When we teach kids to find anything uncomfortable to be hateful, we clearly end up with concepts such as “linguistic violence”. The stereotypical “participation trophy” complaint may actually also hold some weight.

The “Uncoddled” Hypothesis

It turns out going the complete opposite route also leads to similar results. The theory states that with the increase of child day care, aggression also increases. There are a limited number of day care employees, and to get their attention may require aggressive behavior or throwing tantrums because there is not one employee to look after every child. This teaches the child that aggression gets one attention and whatever the child wants. This theory is on shaky ground, as there are conflicting studies. However, it appears that more factors than just the amount of time in child care may play a factor. First, in Norway, child care is offered by the government. Ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency is top priority. In the United States, day cares range from the good to the mediocre to the bad. If it is a simple, one couple day care, there might be more issues that arise. The age when day care is started is another issue. Starting early can cause a whole host of issues for the child (and mother). This of course is doubly “problematic” as it indicates a biological need for women to be active mothers with their children (which there is, why do female mammals have breast milk to feed their children if they weren’t supposed to take care of them?).

The “Identity” Hypothesis

This is where things get interesting. One of the key aspects of ideology is the impact on identity. You can declare yourself a “rights activist” of any kind (except a men’s rights activist, that would be misogynistic). A threat to the ideology becomes a threat to identity. Of course, this means ideologies server as identities, especially for those who do not have one. Many people struggle with who they are, and are vulnerable to being manipulated. This is especially true of minority populations. They join the local activist group to find like minded people, and then think “this is what people like me are saying, so it must be true”. This is then ripe for blatant indoctrination. Sargon of Akkad has done two very interesting case studies, one on a Black Lives Matter Activist, and another on a Black Supremacist, which I have posted at the end of this post.

The “Paranoia / Victimhood” Hypothesis

Feminism paints people as constant victims of the patriarchy. Men are made out to be dangerous subjects. It also provides a convenient way of determining the cause of problems. Didn’t get the job? The manager is a sexist! A man bumps into you on the sidewalk? He’s a misogynist who wishes to dominate your female space! The problem is that most things are simple. It also leads to perpetual victimhood. One can not blame yourself for your faults. It’s society keeping you down. When you’re in a society that you perceive as putting you down, you can’t beat it, and you can’t better yourself. Everything that happens, good or bad, is because of the patriarchy and because you are a woman. Just ask Jess Phillips, who thinks not getting rape threats is bad because that means she is ugly. Rules 3: SJWs always project.

The “Bully” Hypothesis

The simplest argument is that they are bullies. They enjoy putting others down to their perceived societal level. Shouts of “white tears” are common among feminists. They simply get enjoyment out of putting others down, and hold the power to do so. This ends badly, as they become addicted to this power. But it is all ok, as long as you put down those evil white males!

The “Drug Addiction” Hypothesis

There’s also the simple explanation that hearing negative things about a political candidate causes the area in the brain to fire that also fires upon intake of cocaine and heroin. Ideological preservation makes it impossible to hear these negative thoughts. They are simply addicted to their ideology.

Academic One Liners

If you do weave one-liners into a story, you have to have an overall story as well, otherwise it doesn’t really count as narrative.
– Tim Vine

One may question the need for ideological preservation. Why are ideologies so fragile? One of the main reasons is that most ideologies can be reduced to a single sentence summary. All you have to do to disprove an ideology is find something that goes against the summary. This is why ideological preservation is so important. Science is made up of laws, whether in physics or chemistry. One would have to disprove every law in order to disprove those scientific paradigms. All it takes is one survey, one poll, one study, or common sense to destroy an ideology.

Let’s start with an established example. The religious right claims that “violent media creates child killers”. While there is link to increased aggression, there is no link to actual violence. This of course completely destroys the ideology, sending its members into a panicked frenzy of ideological preservation.

Now, let’s take that same example, and replace “child killers” with “sexism”. This is of course a prime narrative in feminist circles, that the portrayal of women and minorities in media contributes to negative behavior in real life. A study came out proving this. Of course, an analysis of the study proved it was completely wrong (ever notice how ideologues who use studies only care about the headline, instead of having any actual analysis, or God forbid actually looking at the data?). This again goes against the one-liner narrative.

This holds true in academia as well as in mainstream ideologies. One of the tenets of postmodernism is “everything is socially constructed”. So when people start looking into things such as universal grammar, which says that language learning and creation is biological, people get upset. Any biology regarding humans goes against postmodernism. I’ll leave a riddle that no one seems to want to answer: Transgender people are born with the brain of the gender they claim to be (this of course also destroys the idea that biological gender is a social construct). This therefore concludes that there are differences between male and female brains. Yet, females and males have brains that are “not too different” and “differing behaviors are a myth.” Have fun with preserving that one.

One can argue that ideologies are broad movements that can’t be summarized into one line. Scientific laws can certainly be summarized in a line or two. The problem lies in the fact that science is harder to break. If you found evidence that contradicts gravitational laws, then there would be ideological preservation taking place. However, these theories have been tested for centuries. It is very easy to find and argue against thought rather than hard science. The ideas or laws are also very linked to each other. If social constructivism is not entirely accurate, then that’s many many more theories and ideas that are now inaccurate or flat out incorrect. Obviously, science is played out in the same way, but it is still much harder to break evidence with evidence. It is much easier to break theory with evidence.

The Problem with “Racist” and “Sexist”

Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out

– Anita Sarkeesian

Calling things *ist or *phobic is an extremely common leftist tactic. It is of course, not an argument based in fact. One can simply call anything racist or sexist. But it is also dangerous outside of arguments and academia. It only serves as a distraction from reality, in most cases.

The first issue is who gets to determine what is sexist or racist. Is one person enough? What if one person says it is not racist? Does there need to be a group of people? What if a larger group of people says it is not racist? Does it need to be a person who is a minority? What if a person who is a minority disagrees? Do groups of minorities need to agree? What if someone in that group disagrees? What if an entire group disagrees? It is near impossible to determine what is racist just by stating that it is racist. There is no objective test to determine if something is racist or sexist based on outside views.

Therefore, the only way to objectively determine any *ist or *phobic act is the intent. Of course, there are issues with this as well. It is difficult to get a person to admit bias in the first place. So, naturally, the left likes to force the issue of intent. Students found a man in KKK robes roaming on campus. Except it was a Dominican friar. A student posted a swastika pin on a bulletin board. Turns out it was from a trip to India, where the swastika is used as a symbol of luck and success. It is very easy to make up any kind of intent. One might argue that you shouldn’t wear / post things similar to things that can be perceived as racist. You would not be a very good multiculturalist then. This perspective would mean that these minority cultures would have to assimilate to the dominant one.

Another major failing is that wantonly describing events as racist or sexist allows for constant self-serving bias. Didn’t get a job? It’s because the employer is racist! Someone says you’re annoying or bossy? Sexist! It is much easier to blame someone else than it is to address your own shortcomings. This is one of the core tenets of ideological preservation: you can never be wrong. This is not to say that events can’t happen for racist or sexist reasons, or that racism or sexism does not exist. It is difficult if not impossible to prove that something really happened because of it. History is no indicator. Just because people were denied housing loans based on skin color before, doesn’t mean it has happened to you, especially when other factors are obviously in play. It also leads to low self-esteem. People being racist or sexist is out of one’s control, no matter how much the feminists want to think that all racism and sexism can be eliminated (which of course goes back to the question of what can truly be declared racist). It prevents a reevaluation of self. Maybe you didn’t get that job because your resume was badly done. Or maybe you really are just annoying and bossy. Attributing this fact to outside factors only allows events like these to continue. Every time you are called annoying, you can point to sexism or racism. This leads to a never ending cycle, one that can not be broken because it is society’s fault. But if you attribute the event to a personal downfall or error, one can improve oneself. You can pick yourself up and try again, and most importantly, improve yourself and leave feeling stronger. Again, this is not to say that racism doesn’t exist anymore. It’s just that thinking the world is out to get you only leads to paranoia and depression. There is also the point that declaring everything to be *ist only loosens the impact of the term.

Ideological Preservation Part 2: Ignorance and Dismissal

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

– Robertson Davies

One of the most basic mechanisms of ideological preservation is simple ignorance. If conflicting facts are not presented, then there is no need to explain them. This is primarily done in classrooms and academia because it is extremely simple to do so: just don’t mention it. Of course, the purpose of a university (in theory…) is to present multiple views on a subject to encourage critical thought. However, at least in my experience, this has not occurred. In my sociology classes throughout the year, it took until nearly the end of the last quarter to bring up any criticism of Marxism. If students do not seek out criticisms, whether they do not want to or do not know where to look, then the ideas in the classrooms are presented as a singular entity. One of my professors said “If you don’t think Thomas Kuhn is correct, then you’re just wrong!” I suppose Alan Sokal is just wrong then…

Media of course plays easily into this role as well. I already went into detail about how social media ruins any critical thought. Obviously, the media is in control of the narrative. They for example, won’t make headlines stating that Obama banned all Venezuelan immigrants (as of the time of writing the search “obama venezuela immigration” only returns Reddit results). This is because they want to keep the narrative that Trump banning entire countries from immigrating is unacceptable. It is also why feminist websites will never post about Hillary Clinton’s foundation pay gap.

When these facts are brought to light, the next step is dismissal. The easiest way, at least in academia, is to simply say that they are wrong. The source is unreliable or ill-argued. This is done from a position of power and nothing else. We are trusting that the professors be unbiased, and take their word for it. They do not need to justify any complaints that something is wrong. The classic way to dismiss is to simply label the work. Saying that a work is “outdated” or even conservative (God forbid that someone has a different belief system!) is another simple method of dismissal which requires no substantive explanation or defense of one’s own ideology (Kimball, Roger – Tenured Radicals pg 20). When you’re out of ideas, one can fall back on the good-old fashioned tried and true method of comparing things you don’t like to Hitler (Tenured Radicals pg 5).

Feminism gains far more power by accusing something of being racist or sexist. These are simple yet powerful words. They still hold no meaning, especially in academia. Stating that something is sexist does not necessarily make it so. In my opinion, only the intent matters in acts. The problem is that otherwise, such terms become nebulous and tricky to define. Does one person calling a view sexist make it so? Does it have to be two or more? Does it have to be every female professor? If one person does not find the view sexist, is it enough to cancel it out? If a female professor agrees that it is not sexist, does that cancel it out? There is no way to determine if something is sexist or racist. There is no definable objective test as to whether a view is sexist or not, it can only be subjective in nature. As such, it is ripe for abuse, as one can then simply claim any view they don’t like is sexist or racist (Tenured Radicals pg 20).

Ignorance is bliss. By ignoring conflicting facts and reason, the ideology preserves itself quite well. Marxism and feminism are, in universities, presented as the only correct view. This also applies to other current paradigms such as postmodernism or critical theory. This is dangerous, as it means no other interpretations are considered. Putting all the problems in these paradigms aside, all of these ideologies are just one method of interpreting the world. Encouraging and implanting one world view is detrimental to the university experience as well as in real life. Of course, the ideologues are far more concerned with the upkeep of their ideology, rather than considering other points of view.

Dismissal is also dangerous to individuals as well. When something is dismissed, it is done through a position of power. Power is then used as the justification. When a professor says a view is incorrect or wrong, they do so with presumed authority. Of course, this does not mean that professors can’t correct an incorrect presumption or view, they just have to do it factually and rationally. Simply saying it is wrong is not enough. Referencing their own ideological positions are not enough either, especially when such ideology is also easily debunked. The classic feminist line is “educate yourself and check your privilege!”. This is also done from a position of power, as it is presuming that the one using the line is more informed about the subject. The main issue is that it increases animosity towards other points of view. If you’re view is right, why should you have to explain it? You’re clearly the more informed one. Anyone who brings out criticisms must not know what they are talking about! In that regard, dismissal then plays multiple roles. It preserves the ideology by giving a simple, inarguable reason to get rid of opposing views. It also functions as a recruiting tool, as dismissing from a position of power, especially when they are a professor, makes one want to learn the “right” way of thinking. When ignorance and dismissal fails, that’s when the reshaping process begins…

Ideological Preservation Part 1: Introduction

It is difficult to free fools from their chains they revere.

– Voltaire

(Note: This is meant to be a simple introduction. More detailed posts will come, and this post will be updated to reflect that.)

Ideologies do not just spring up and take over. There is a process for their formation. More importantly, there needs to be a process of ideological preservation. If an ideology does not have the means to preserve itself, it will eventually fall prone to fracture. The fracturing process has occurred naturally both in academic and political contexts, such as within the GOP or in psychology (especially with Freud). Ideologues have no interest in this fracture, as they would lose the ideology they are dependent on for so many reasons.

The ideological preservation process is complex and has several tools available for use:

Reshaping Process – The reshaping process reshapes thoughts or ideas to fit an ideology. There are 3 steps to this process: ignorance, dismissal, and reshaping. Ignorance and dismissal are simple enough. Reshaping occurs when a conflicting idea is explained within the confines of the ideology. The result are statements such as “Men are victims of the patriarchy too.”
Moldy Pretzel Theory – Moldy pretzel theory applies when a conflicting idea is distorted and left undesirable. This works as both a tool of preservation and one of recruitment.
Self-fulfilling Theories – These are theories, who by their very existence, cause the very trouble they are trying to solve. Marxism itself is a large self-fulfilling ideology. Putting people into groups that are opposed to each other does not solve racial, economic, or gender relations. Stereotype threat is another example. By stating that minorities perform worse academically due to notions that they underperform, the notion that minorities perform worse is simply reinforced.
Oversimplification – Oversimplification is when an idea is narrowed down to destroy any nuance associated with it. This occurs with ideas that the ideology accepts and as well as opposes. Terminological takeover is a more sustained example of this.
Non-Arguments – One of the most prevalent preservation tools. Labelling and political tribalism are one simple method. Circular perceptives are another.

The preservation process has many moving parts. Certain ideologies are better at preserving themselves than others. Feminism is by far the most evolved because it is the only ideology to hit the everyday mainstream. As an ideology becomes more popular, the more defense is needed. Ideologies such as the religious right have these techniques, but are less effective as not everyone is religious. Marxism, despite being evolved academically, has difficulty entering the mainstream due to the radical nature of its ideals. Marxism has of course co-opted the feminist movement (one can argue that it always has) and gained popularity that way, but when detached from feminism the ideology is less effective at preservation, albeit it is still in close control due to its relation to academia.

The result of these posts is to hopefully demonstrate these processes, how they work, and most importantly, how (or if) they can be defeated. This framework applies to all ideologies, and examples from different ideologies will be utilized.

Big Media and Critical Thought

“The devil gave humans critical thinking, which God didn’t want us to have.”

– Unknown

Big media has ruined critical thought both intentionally and unintentionally. The notion that the internet is truly open is misguided in practice. Firstly, one chooses what to see. Subreddits and Youtube channels are subscribed to, Facebook pages are liked, friend requests are approved, and who you follow on Twitter are all selected. You get to choose your own environment. This is obviously not an issue on its own. However, one still only gets views that one approves of. This is highly dangerous as one view is usually stated over and over, even if this view can easily be proven factually incorrect. It also labels enemies quite easily. If someone if your group posts something that is not approved of by that group, it is fiercely attacked, even if it shows factual basis. People are more likely to respond harshly online as opposed to in-person. This creates a dangerous atmosphere where people might be afraid to post due to fear of backlash. It is also extremely easy to unfollow / unfriend someone, making it easy to simply hide different points of view or posts rather than confront them.

This issue goes farther when sites are catered to one’s preferences, or just outright censors. In 2011, Facebook implemented an algorithm to tailor user’s main pages based on the links that they clicked. This means that content that did not “interest you” (i.e. you didn’t click the links) would be filtered out. Not only can one tailor social media themselves, the companies can do it for you. One now only has a guaranteed singular perspective. There have been reports of Twitter and Facebook silently censoring views or posts that they do not agree with. It is of course up to the company to decide what is acceptable or not, but they primarily censor conservative views, or any hashtags or posts critical of feminism. This brings the ability to hide views up to the highest level. Now even if people want to see opposing views, they do not have the ability to do so.

This leaves us with an illusion that the internet is truly a free flowing area of information. The main point to take away from this, are the effects in real life. If one spends all of their time on Facebook, they are glued to the views that they hold. When someone comes and challenges that view in person, the view is held on to. You have seen many posts and articles about it, it must be true! Even when presented with factual evidence, the articles have trained you to disregard it, because what you have seen can not possibly be wrong, everyone has said it! It does not help when these views are also parroted by mainstream media, and sites such as Buzzfeed. Big media also prevents considering other points of view by using the usual buzzwords. A great example is the phenomenon known as “gamedropping”, where in a completely irrelevant article, Gamergate is mentioned for no reason. This also frequently occurs in any mention of MRAs (men’s rights activists), whom the media frequently paints as “misogynistic manbabies”, while associating them with shooter Elliot Rodger (who was never even related to MRAs in the first place. Nor is it right to blame the actions of one on a few, unless we already hate that group). Big media truly controls what we see, whether we like to or not. It is extremely dangerous, and has been the root of the formation of ideologies such as feminism and the #NeverTrump movement.