Social Justice, Ideological Hijackings, and Ideological Security | Hacker News Reader

Social Justice, Ideological Hijackings, and Ideological Security

thefutureprimaeval.net

Wikipedia is actually falling victim to this. Some articles now show noticeable bias (e.g. compare the "Men's Rights 'movement'" article to "Women's Rights"). On many pages, particularly gender related articles, there is a band of aggressive editors who will fight reasonable efforts to balance the tone of articles. Outside contributors who try to improve these pages will get dogpiled on. Unless you are an expert at wiki-lawyering, you won't survive even a couple edits before you are banned or restricted from editing. They enforce/investigate multiple accounts, VPN & proxy usage vigorously, so once you are out, you are effectively purged.

If you are ambitious and make edits similar to what others have tried (often because all of them are trying to fix the same biased statement), expect to be accused of being a "sockpuppet" or of being a "meatpuppet." If that fails, you will be accused of "tendentious editing". Of course responding to these accusations takes extraordinary amounts of time -- which is the point. These tactics are used (very successfully) to reduce people's resolve to contribute or fix biased articles.

Wikipedia's ideological hijacking is a serious problem and arguably represents the biggest threat to Wikipedia's longterm legitimacy. Those engaging in ideological hijackings have (very rightly) realized that if they can define what is written about a movement on Wikipedia, they can control what society thinks about it.

There is a real, documented, historically significant movement for women's rights --- most notably, suffrage. The same isn't true of "men's rights", and the fact that you'd make that comparison is, I think, extremely telling.

What is it telling?

This comes across as an effort to shut down discussion via ad hominem. I'm sure that you didn't mean it as such, but "the fact that you x is telling" is a pretty commonly used rhetorical tool to impugn a counterpart without actually saying anything substantive.

What it was is a short comment implying the poster of creating a false equivalence between the women's rights movement and the men's rights movement. What it seems like to you has no relation to it's content.

If we are going to measure movements in historically significance, the social equality movement far surpasses the women's rights in historical age, number of people involved, number of people being effected, and number of wars been fought and continue being fought over it.

It is pointless to try to compare movements this way as there is always an other movement that is bigger and older.

That's only because "men's rights" are conflated with human rights. You don't have to actively define a subset of rights to a gender in order to specifically address them. It just so happens to be the case with women's rights and suffrage.

Clearly men did and do not have the ability to vote in a large amount of political climates both historically and currently.

This isn't a gender study class. The fact that someone's opinion is "extremely telling" means they are getting their point across, and as much as you would enjoy that to be a GOTCHA, it's not, and you won't be burning anyone at the stake here.

Opinions about the "men's rights movement" and its veracity very, I understand that. I only referenced it because it was an example I encountered where there is a clear effort to make the article's central theme criticisms of the movement.

But more generally, what happens on Wikipedia is that a few passionate and experienced editors with an ideological motive (who have unbelieveable amounts of time on their hands) begin "taking ownership" over a collection of pages. (Some of them even organize "edit-a-thons" with other activists in a team effort to quickly skew a page.) Once the page has become biased, progress to fix it stalls to a standstill because they will fight every change tooth and nail, and because they can dogpile to create the appearance of a consensus in the talk page, they succeed. The other side has equally as many people disagreeing with their stances, but they are not hitting the article all at once in an organized stance so they get picked off one by one.

Without a degree in wiki-lawyering, a team of dedicated editors by your side, moderators who will do your bidding and the equivalent of a semesters worth of free time available to contradict attempts to overemphasize one POV, you don't stand a chance.

There are also real, documented, movement for men's rights, for example fathers rights organisations.

    the fact that you'd make that comparison is, I think, extremely telling.

Could one not argue that it is telling us that there is a need for such organisations, and that the privileged mainstream prefers not to address such issues, because it would have to give up on some privileges?

As an aside, what is the reason that you mention the suffrage without mentioning that the suffrage movement did not campaign for women being included in the draft, when the only non-sexist resolution of the conundrum would have been (and still is) to legislate that suffrage should be given exactly to those who are subject to the draft? In other words, why did you omit mentioning this outrageous and still ongoing basic sexism of the suffrage movement?

Things I've noticed about this discussion:

* The vast majority of participants in this discussion are extremists. Both sides. No matter their claims. No matter their organizations. No matter their cause. There is rife misogyny and misandry to be had. Nobody knows why they are fighting so they fight over genitalia.

* Participants on both sides are just as vile as the other. Have anti-GG been harassed? Yes. Have GG been harassed? Yes. On equal terms of severity. There are a few sane participants but they tend to be quieter and also seem to be taking a step back from it all.

* Out of "real-life" people these thought patterns seem to be a minority - they are just making a lot of noise and drama on the internet. I've challenged people with both sides of the discussion in "real-life" and was met with disbelief.

* Social justice (anti-GG term) within the argument is not social justice. Ethics and egalitarianism (GG terms) within the argument also do not hold their true meaning.

None of these people are worth getting involved with. Just stay away from this whole discussion. It doesn't matter how liberal you are or how well-intentioned you are: someone is going to find your weakness and provoke you.

Let Reddit burn. Really. It's just a website. It doesn't matter. Whoever wins the war will simply be the rulers of an empty kingdom.

Edit: glad the post was flag-killed.

Are you complaining that the anarchists seem extreme?

This entire discussion is ahistorical. Anarchists have murdered dozens of policemen, dozens of bosses, an American president and dozens of elected officials, and dozens of people for what they said all over the world. Anarchism is not about a fantasy of organizing society after the zombie apocalypse, it's a body of thought with a few hundred years of tradition. Feminism is central to that tradition.

Gamergate is some bizarre internet misogynist media panic from last year.

> Are you complaining that the anarchists seem extreme?

Not complaining about anarchists at all. I'm fairly uneducated about their beliefs but I have come to understand that they are not completely unreasonable.

> Gamergate is some bizarre internet misogynist media panic from last year.

It's this that's spilling over into every discussion that I'm talking about. The origin of the anarcha-feminists on Reddit is most likely GG backlash. There is concern on that website that anti-GG extremists are taking over and it looks like /r/anarchism is yet another subreddit in the crosshairs; it's yet another completely unrelated discussion getting dragged into this internet misogyny/misandry.

My advice to you is: if you really care about anarchism then let /r/anarchy burn. Just leave. I don't care if you go to Voat. I don't care if you start your own website. I don't care if you leave the internet. Just abandon ship and rid yourself of this argument. You can't win because your opponent is not interested in a decisive outcome: your opponent is interested in noise and harassment.

You're mistaking me for an internet anarchist. I don't know anything about reddit, or much about anarchist discussion on the internet.

There are many wonderful archives of historical anarchist thought on the internet, making sources that were really difficult or impossible to find when I was young (before the internet) available to everyone in a few keystrokes.

Gamergate is completely insignificant, but positive in that the ensuing media panic exposed people to how difficult it is to be a woman or a minority on the internet.

Since when do anarchists care about "tradition"? Tradition is central to right wing ideology. And since when is feminism central to anarchism? I guess since marxist-inspired leftists (and now SJWs) hijacked it distorting the meaning of this word beyond recognition in the process. Where's the feminism in Bakunin, Kropotkin or even worse Proudhon?

You know I really like your ideas here. Once a while ago I told people to leave twitter for the same reasons. It's pretty much a cesspool and doesn't foster worthwhile communication or in depth discussion. I’ve since looked at all social media through this lens. I know it’s bleak. I won’t deny that.

I was actually reading a comment on Reddit that basically complained that Reddit didn’t foster a sense of community. The main complaint was that there was less emphasis on who was talking rather than what they were saying. I thought, well isn’t that backwards? Don’t want we want the free flow of ideas without being tainted by comments like ‘that guy is believes this or that, so his contributions are irrelevant’?

I think you’re right. Let it burn. Just walk away.

Still I sort of wish there was someone studying the cultures that grow in these places. I find the inside jokes and relationships (even on Reddit) between the users, mods, and admins to be very interesting. I think that kind of study could help us understand how we communicate on social media. We could use a Jane Goodall of internet social media communities.

I don't know why we get dragged into these arguments. It's not natural. I strongly doubt the stress is healthy.

Actually I think it's very natural. If not femenism and journalistic ethics it would be communism and witchcraft. This is what people do. We form teams. We are 'us' they are 'them'.

What I've noticed from this latest battle is that once it get's off the internet and is talked about in normal venues it just fails. Outside of Twitter and Tumbler no one seems to care either way.

Participants on both sides are just as vile as the other. Have anti-GG been harassed? Yes. Have GG been harassed? Yes. On equal terms of severity. There are a few sane participants but they tend to be quieter and also seem to be taking a step back from it all.*

Eh no. Look globally. Are men-as-a-class second class people in any country? Nope. Are women-as-a-class? Yep (e.g. Saudi Arabia)

What does Saudi have to do with this discussion?

It's an example of a country where women are legally treated much worse than men. There are no examples of where men are legally treated much worse than women.

Yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion? If you're just going to expand the scope like that we might as well include the entire animal kingdom. Female spiders eat their mates. How is that for unfair treatment?

We're talking about "internet people." Stay on topic. Anyone can successfully argue any point by simply presenting a moving target and by veering off-topic.

I fail to understand how Saudi has anything to do with GG and anti-GG harassing people. If you think that harassment can be excused because Arab countries marginalize a gender you are delusional. You don't fix problems by making more problems.

He mentions a subreddit dedicated to no rules slowly but surely being taken over by the same kinds of rules lawyer-ing they were trying to escape.

I am so, so glad he mentioned this, because I have seen it happen to two, mid-way three, communities online where these exact societal issues work together only up until they really start to get to know one another, at which point they realize they're at odds. Sometimes it's a clear schism, but the ones that hurt the most are those that remain but are quite clearly forever changed in the favor of one side. It's almost as if they treat it as vindication and banishing a group of people for differences in opinion is, as I said, typically the antithesis of these groups.

My guess is that every online community suffers this sort of breakdown and reinvention if it lasts for more than a few years, but that social justice and other more "modern" ideologies are just the latest and most visible / tracked step in the greater phenomenon.

The internet brought us together, we struggle with that fact every day! :)

This is worth a read. It is GG centrist, but explains quite good the cultural war that is waging right now.

http://popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obi...

I find this one https://paxdickinson.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/three-modern-g... a little better but both are pretty good.

So LGBT people, and women are now the powerful people in society, as part of a 1,000 year culture struggle? What next, blame the Jews?

No. They are just the banners. Oh they are skillful at faking outrage on twitter. And sadly a lot of people with otherwise functioning brains think that for reasons unknown twitter is important and take cues. Sad state of affairs.

> He mentions a subreddit dedicated to no rules slowly but surely being taken over by the same kinds of rules lawyer-ing they were trying to escape.

Anarchism isn't about no rules, it's about no rulers. You seem to be mistaking it for /b/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

That was a really, really good read. It's worth highlighting the section where they describe the four conditions where unstructured groups grow effective:

1) It is task oriented. Its function is very narrow and very specific, like putting on a conference or putting out a newspaper. It is the task that basically structures the group. The task determines what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. It provides a guide by which people can judge their actions and make plans for future activity.

2) It is relatively small and homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary to insure that participants have a "common language" for interaction. People from widely different backgrounds may provide richness to a consciousness-raising group where each can learn from the others' experience, but too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they continually misunderstand each other. Such diverse people interpret words and actions differently. They have different expectations about each other's behavior and judge the results according to different criteria. If everyone knows everyone else well enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever thought would arise.

3) There is a high degree of communication. Information must be passed on to everyone, opinions checked, work divided up, and participation assured in the relevant decisions. This is only possible if the group is small and people practically live together for the most crucial phases of the task. Needless to say, the number of interactions necessary to involve everybody increases geometrically with the number of participants. This inevitably limits group participants to about five, or excludes some from some of the decisions. Successful groups can be as large as 10 or 15, but only when they are in fact composed of several smaller subgroups which perform specific parts of the task, and whose members overlap with each other so that knowledge of what the different subgroups are doing can be passed around easily.

4) There is a low degree of skill specialization. Not everyone has to be able to do everything, but everything must be able to be done by more than one person. Thus no one is indispensable. To a certain extent, people become interchangeable parts.

----

You could actually apply a lot of these principles to software teams, particularly the need for open communication between everyone. When I see projects not doing this I often find their effectiveness drop too.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

To quote from https://lobste.rs/s/ovabwi/social_justice_ideological_hijack... :

> This author seems like a calm, unbiased source for social-justice issues. Here is an article where they compare the rise of Napoleon in France, Hitler and communism in Germany, and gay marriage in the US: http://thefutureprimaeval.net/we-support-diversity-and-equal...

> Nothing sensational to see here, move along http://thefutureprimaeval.net/content/images/2015/06/yck7qK7...

I don't interpret the comparison there as "these are all equally bad" (I bet the author would endorse Napoleon's rise to power, in fact), but more as "this is what sudden changes in preference falsification equilibria backed by authority look like".

The picture (and some other equivalents) were created as "The most offensive flag ever" when people got vomiting sickness from discussions about rainbows and confederate flags that were the N in SNR and made finding the important news in the news streams almost impossible.

>and started banning and deleting the comments of the "trolls" who were making /r/anarchism an "unsafe and unwelcoming" space for women.

The best way to stick it to the man is to become him ...

There are a lot of terrible opinions on that person's blog.

There is no anarchism without feminism. Complaining about anarchists focusing on social justice is like complaining about water being wet.

I'd recommend reading books instead of reddit. The author must have accidentally made a left turn on the way to /r/libertarianism.

Define your terms please.

No anarchism without gender equality (feminism) seems like a reasonable enough point to have in a conversation about anarchism. It's conspicuously asserted and disagreed with more than the surface level point would warrant. All signs suggest this statement is in reality a loaded social signal.

No anarchism without the amero-centric slice of a 21st century political movement and all it's associated baggage? Ah, now we've got something bananastown enough to start the purported internet fights.

So, I'll repeat, define your terms please. And are your definitions the ones everybody in the conversation w/r/t r/anarchism in specific, and anarchism in general, understand to be in use?

> No anarchism without the amero-centric slice of a 21st century political movement and all it's associated baggage?

I don't know what this is referring to, and I don't understand your question. Defining the real world conditions that would lead to or constitute "gender equality" is the root of the discussion.

You seem to be appending an ideology to a political philosophy that is neutral on how gender is perceived.

What you take as 'anarchism' is merely anarcha-feminism(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism).

Anarchism itself got started over 2000 years ago and could also be compatible within a society where women is seen as 'property'

You seem to be redefining a political philosophy into what you think it should mean. Anarchism did not start 2000 years ago. Anarchism is pure post-enlightenment, although like most philosophical thought, precursors are seen and inspiration is taken from Greek, Roman and religious/Christian sources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com