Hacker News Reader

> Ah. Rodriguez resents progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy (presumably because Rodriguez enjoys exerting social control far more than experiencing it) and has coined this new jargon to associate movements he dislikes with a reviled term (totalitarianism) > > Rodriguez begins with an intellectual lie, then uses it to advance the idea that anti-racist and anti-misogynist movements are the actual oppressors. And not the misogynists and racists themselves.

What evidence is there that progressive movements are actually seeking to upend anything? Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century, and have this been influential in the rest of the West.

As far as I can tell, progressive movements like BLM and MeToo are absolutely attempting to preserve the existing order. After all, these movements and groups are well-funded by the very people you suggest they are trying to take down. These movements and groups (and you?) appear to cheer 1% of the population holding 99% of the wealth as long as that 1% is 50% female, 14% black, 5% percent LGBT or whatever, etc.

The intellectual lie you begin with is that progressives don't already have a complete monopoly over the relevant cultural power.

EDIT:

> Insanely, Rodriguez points to...

Also, if I were you, I might be cautious about using the I-word. It's already banned from being in any commits at Google.

> Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century

Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s.

> Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s.

Progressive movements in general, not BLM and MeToo in particular.

The Atlantic, The New Republic, the American Economics Association, Planned Parenthood and many other Progressive organizations have been around for over a century. BLM is a particular instance of the sort of "third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement.

(The first wave Progressives wanted nothing to do with civil rights, and most were virulent and unrepentant racists like Woodrow Wilson or Margaret Sanger. The second wave was based around the welfare state and neutrality on racial issues, and included FDR, Harry Truman and the New Deal coalition. All three groups advocate for nearly identical policies, and yet have contradictory stated goals.)

Explain how "existing" is the same as the original "controlling".

> third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement.

> The first wave Progressives wanted nothing to do with civil rights, and most were virulent and unrepentant racists

> All three groups advocate for nearly identical policies

All three of these statements can't be true at once.

They use "based on" to mean "using a stated goal of "expanding the civil rights movement" as a justification for their policies [despite those policies being nearly identical the policies advocated by first wave Progressives]", not to claim that third wave Progressives actually act in manner consistent with "expanding the civil rights movement" as a terminal goal.

> BLM is a particular instance of the sort of "third wave" of Progressive activism, which is based on expanding the civil rights movement.

That sounds like some ivory-tower theoretical nonsense to me. BLM is, on the whole, seeking the real-world application and reification of the original civil rights movement. It's not "expanding" any particular political philosophy to insist on justice by bringing attention to violent crimes perpetrated by law enforcement and the justice system against people of color. Institutionalized racism is real, and the degree to which saying "black lives matter" is necessary, let alone controversial, is telling.

"progressives... have a complete monopoly over the relevant cultural power"

Can you really make that claim, in light of the current political climate and in-progress election results?

"Complete" goes too far, I agree, but it's also not right to think these movements are standing up to the powers that be. A movement including JPMorgan, Google, Nike, Walmart, Chevron, etc. has to be seen as a component of the current social hierarchy rather than a challenge to it.

> progressive movements like BLM and MeToo are absolutely attempting to preserve the existing order

I so wish this were true. If we lived in the world BLM envisions, George Floyd and while lot more people would still be alive.

BLM started as a response to police brutality driven by an institution that is quite literally the furthest you could get from progressive ideals. In the last hundred years, these police departments: violently broke up strikes at the behest of corporations, tried to put down the Civil Rights movement, and have been by far the biggest proponent of the destructive war on drugs. Institutions that to this day have nearly impenetrable qualified immunity - a level of power no one else has.

#MeToo started as a response to a flood of accusations against Harvey Weinstein, quite literally one of the most powerful and influential people in Hollywood at the time. It was followed up by a flood of accusations against Les Moonves, CEO of CBS, one of the most powerful and influential people in television broadcasting at the time. These men were at the top for decades

Your analysis makes no logical sense. The nature of these institutions hasn't changed, some figureheads were sacrificed and shuffled around (literally, in the case of police departments).

> they control the schools

Let's get specific with this one. What's one thing that is taught in schools that you object to?

I suspect that what's taught in schools about homosexuality would make liberals more comfortable than conservatives. I suspect that almost everything taught in the humanities in universities would make liberals more comfortable than conservatives.

Depends on what culture you are conserving, right? Maybe american conservatives ideology conserves a narrow judeo christian, protestant view that isnt necessarily the same conservativism that runs in jewish, Hindu, Catholic, atheistic communities. Sometimes these ideologies intersect on certain values, but it definitely does not contain the whole conservative view.

The structure of the learning environment.

The reference materials.

The subjects which have been omitted.

Ad hominem attacks like this one calling him insane and questioning his ethics illustrate the author’s thesis quite effectively.

> progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy

They seek to advance the interests of people on top of the current social hierarchy. Most stakeholders who have influence on modern society seem to support these movements and don’t feel threatened by it.

Your criticism seems sloppy. "Social control" and "oppression" can come from peers or superiors, so they don't pick out the concept the author is interested in, which is specifically horizontal (peer) social control. That may not be a new concept - off the top of my head, I know Orwell wrote a lot about it - but you don't even seem to understand what the topic of the article is.

You are upset about one sentence in the article, one that I also happen to disagree with. And on that basis, this sloppy dismissal of the whole piece? Lame.

I was typing a similar response, before I saw your better articulated one. Thank you.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the statement: "<actions> perpetrated in recent years by fanaticised supporters of <group>" is the same as suggesting <group> is an oppressor.

One can criticize the Red Terror, for example, without criticizing socialism - if that makes sense.

At any rate, even if I agreed with you, this idea of finding someones "secret motivations" and condemning them for it instantly loses me - there is plenty of good ground to fight on without guessing and accusations.

If you have issues with the ideas or know of similar ideas with different names then let's have it.

But what is it with this mind reading and character lynching?

What could be your motivation and why do you even bother?

> spanktheuser

Oh, nm.

What a shame. You seem like a smart bloke.

Don't you see how this response demonstrates the author's point? We're in an intellectual environment where people routinely scan for deviations from cultural norms - where hints that the author might secretly believe bad things are considered a strong form of argument. It's hard to meaningfully dispute the social consensus among one's peers in such an environment.