Hacker News Reader

Comment by jb775 | Hacker News Reader

- obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own

The current state of social discourse is essentially landmines in the form of Kafkatraps[1]. Once there's any form of discussion on an unfalsifiable topic, it provides the leftist with a false sense of justification, simply because it was discussed...even if the leftist's reasoning made no sense and they lost the debate. Then they use the false justification to trick low-intelligence people into believing it's actually justified.

This has led us into a race towards the bottom within society, catering to the loudest complainer in the room. Crabs in a bucket.

Seems like the only real way to counter these unfalsifiable arguments is to call the person a fucking clown and tell them what a kafkatrap is.

[1] https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-m...

View on HN

Thank you! I now know what this phenomenon is called. I went through "diversity training" when I worked at a university, and was appalled at the presentation. The Kafkatrap was _exactly_ the trick used throughout the entire "Q&A". It was so insidious, bit I didn't have a name for it -- now I do.

It kind of blew my mind when I first heard of the term last year. The comment thread of my source article is really interesting as well.

It's one of those concepts that everyone understands, but there wasn't really a word for. It still kind of hurts by brain how no one can come up with a solid rebuttal to the situation (this is what the article's comment thread touches on). Which leads me to believe this is somewhat of a forefront in human understanding/psychology.

I've been calling people who spread these kafkatrap things out for exactly what they are. People completely out of touch with how logic or reason works. Of course, they aren't interested in that, since logic is "the Master's Tools" of oppression.

Well, you know what no self respecting sjw should be interested in programming digital technology. /s Since it's all ones and zeros it's all binary, but they live in a non binary world, there are no men and women, a world of subtleties, everything is done in a shade of oppression and power. Only the level is different, you can be violent with words, express microaggressions or even nanoagression. You are the most privileged with the least amounts of pigmentation, albinos are at the height of it so it seems. Someone give these people a Nobel price ASAP.

> it provides the leftist

It's no different than the far-right unfalsifiable standards that were enforced for centuries, more often than not with religious overtones. Let's not pretend this is a left/right thing, so much as it's just an extremist thing. Only now, the leftist is using the outrage tactic just as effectively as the right, which has lost a lot of its moral high ground on most social issues.

Agreed and I dislike how these conversations just embolden people to invite us into their right wing filter bubble after they see our dissatisfaction with left wing filter bubbles

For now I’m satisfied with the reversion to the mean of not talking politics at work

I kind of agree with this—one of my main criticisms of left-wing ideology is that it so closely resembles right-wing ideology, and it certainly seems to push a lot of people toward the right wing. In particular the intense left-wing pressure to suppress any frank, unscripted conversations about race leaves a lot of “ideologically vulnerable” people with nowhere to turn with respect to their questions than the welcoming embrace of right wing folks, which unsurprisingly swells their ranks. All of this intense left-wing bad behavior similarly gives right wing folks a sense of moral license to behave badly as well (for just one example, think of how the media and other prominent voices profusely excused and justified BLM riots all summer long and the precedent that probably set for the 1/6 riot).

“Reversion to the mean” is probably a good thing insofar as it means “moderating ourselves”.

> 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.

A number of examples come to mind, but the most prominent is the Red Scare.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

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.

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.

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).

Of course - there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war. Police brutality, on the other hand, is real.

That’s hindsight.

>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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

What I’ve really meant is: there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war, unless started by US. The example above demonstrates this nicely.

The example above is a counterexample, where the USSR threatened to initiate.

Not from the description above - it says USSR wanted to use nukes in a local conflict; it's the US that threatened to make it global.

It doesn't say anything about the entire globe, just Russia.

You may be mistakenly equating nuking of hundreds of cities with planetary destruction.

There were hundreds of atmospheric nuclear weapon tests during the cold war. If that had been the end of the world, we wouldn't be talking about it.

The Red Scare began in the 1920s, long before nuclear weapons were invented, so the threat of nuclear war was not the primary determinant factor characterizing that situation

Quick question, without checking the numbers, about how many black people do you think were killed by police last year and how many of them were unarmed? I'm interested in knowing what you think the numbers are in reference to them possibly being a credible threat.

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?

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.

> 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.

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.

Yeah. Tbh it reminds me very much of the classic LBJ quote "let's make him deny it".

Exactly. I identify as strict antifascist and leftist, but cannot understand why the extremist social justice warriors are identified as leftist. Eg there was this citation by them

> creates a “not safe work environment.”

On the contrary, calling for censorship and heated nonscientific, political discussion on the workplace, esp. against conservatives, creates a non safe work environment. It also cripples science.

Formerly they were called out as religious zealots, not leftists.

Exactly... wanted to say this... I don't subscribe to the left vs right dichotomy to begin with, but "kafkatrapping" is a tactic used by both sides. When I was reading the link, I was reminded of a ex-colleague, who thought my transition was wrong because it is pandering to the inherent evil in me. Ah...

> Then they use the false justification to trick low-intelligence people into believing it's actually justified.

I don't agree with this. Anyone who has been following politics has noticed the growth in the left's base, mainly from the college educated. A lot of these activists seem to be motivated by the (ironically) paternalistic notion that they know better than the groups they advocate for.

I see quite a few unsubstantiated claims like this being thrown around in this thread. Can you help by clarifying 1) which activists? 2) which groups to which they do not belong are they speaking on behalf of? 3) in what way do they think they know better? 4) who among these groups has spoken out against what activists say? and 5) what gives you the impression that the activists have not consulted with the groups they represent (if they are not themselves members of the group)?

1) the woke ones. 2) see the comment up thread about the disabled person expected to to fall in line because they’re part of a minority group. 3) see kafkatrap. 4) unsure what you’re asking. 5) see latinx conversation up thread.

What triggered my comment was episode 225 of Rationally Speaking[1]. In it, there was an interview with Veena Dubal[2] where she (according to the podcast) is a prominent advocate for AB5 [3]. In it, she concedes that taxi drivers themselves have been polled[4] and _do not_ want be classified as employees and want to maintain their independent contractor status.

So in answer to your bullet points:

1) Veena Dubal

2) Uber drivers (I mean, I could be mistaken. Perhaps this professor of law moonlights as an Uber driver. If so, I would continue to argue that this is not her main vocation.)

3) She wants Uber drivers to be classified as employees

4) The majority of Uber drivers

5) Nothing and I never said they hadn't consulted. In this case, quite clearly they have consulted with the groups but have not listened.

Now, in the podcast, Dubal goes on to dispute the polling methodology of the various polls. Well okay, re-poll with your questions and present the data. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't ram through legislation before convincing the people you're going to affect the most that it's good for them. Educate and convince them first.

[1]: http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/255-are-uber-and-lyft-d...

[2]: https://www.uchastings.edu/people/veena-dubal/

[3]: https://www.investopedia.com/california-assembly-bill-5-ab5-...

[4]: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/513506-uber-poll-drive...

low-intelligence people

mainly from the college educated

What would you call going $200,000 into debt for a non-STEM degree?

College education is no sign of intelligence, it’s often the opposite.

Gotta agree here. Only Americans think University and brains are directly correlated.

Absolutely untrue, seen that all over Europe as well.

College education, including a fair amount of STEM, is an admission fee to be considered middle-class (or higher, depending on which school you went to). Nothing more. What you actually learn in college is 100% secondary to being able to say that you went to school X (and have the connections from that school).

You're assuming that intelligent and college-educated are near-synonyms. I've seen plenty of evidence that's not necessarily true.

Is this evidence you speak of your own personal and subjective experience or is it peer-reviewed studies? If it is of the latter kind, could you provide some citations for me to peruse?

Yes, it is the peer-reviewed studies, and in particular their quality, that I'm speaking of.

Are you certain that you are qualified to judge the quality of peer-reviewed studies? In either case, that isn't what I was asking about and you know it.

Why wouldn't they be qualified? Are they perhaps not college-educated... And therefore not intelligent enough?

why do people always link the worst possible site to cite the kafkatrap? it's literally a conspiracy theory site encouraging a prosecution of Fauci on the front page.

It confims existing beliefs so it doesn't really get scrutinized.

I thought the same thing. It's unfortunate because the linked article is fine but I can't share it because of all of the other wacky nonsense.

> Seems like the only real way to counter these unfalsifiable arguments is to call the person a fucking clown and tell them what a kafkatrap is.

I think a better strategy is to avoid engaging them in the first place.

This may be would be effective, but this is also the same as "deplatforming" tactic that they use. If you're the kind of person who wants to defend the spirit of rational, open debate, isn't refusing to engage someone a tactic that on itself contradicts those views?

Do you engage all the BS at work, or do you let it burn itself? Whatever arguments you have need time to become more constructive, neutral and obvious. Arguments back and forth is fruitless and depleting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com