← Back to context

Comment by raffraffraff

3 days ago

If his definition of woke mind virus is "identitarianism", then it's agree that it's fucking awful. But I wouldn't call it "woke mind virus".

Identitarianism is a cancer, that has been fed via social media algorithms. We seem to have invented a machine for rewarding all of the wrong incentives. Who would have thought that phenomena like audience capture & polarised thought bubbles would be in the palm of the hand, directing thoughts and forming unbreakable opinions on an array of issues that otherwise wouldn't even be on the radar?

I don't think that this is a left, right or in between thing. Identitarianism had infected the entire political spectrum.

BTW: Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't take the Wikipedia definition of "identitarian movement" and identitarianism. I'm thinking entirely about identity politics. "If you're associated with person X you must be Y", or "If you believe A you must be a B". Highly policed thought bubbles. Ostracism. Cancelling.

As a result, today, with technology that can enable mass communication of thought, there are important conversations that can no longer happen in society.

10 comments

raffraffraff

Reply
tardedmeme  11 hours ago

Usage of the phrase "woke mind virus" is itself a symptom of identitarianism. Only identitarians use the phrase.

dyauspitr  2 days ago

As your average progressive, I agree that I don’t like identarianism. When you have 8-15 years old putting a lot of effort into defining themselves as a “non binary, trans feminist pansexual” it gutturally feels wrong. These kids should not be wasting their time and energy on asinine pursuits like this at that age over performing well academically and over developing their physical prowess. I preferred the 00s where it was generally considered taboo to talk/ask about ethnicity/religion/sexuality.

Unfortunately with that perspective, I end in in the same camp as unabashed bigots and real Nazis.

  • raffraffraff  2 days ago

    Yep. This situation doesn't do the "cancellers" much good either. What they want to do is eliminate the 'evil person' from society. Wipe them from social media. Block them. Even get them fired. Make them disappear.

    But here's the problem. This whole phenomenon is most prevalent in western style democracy. You cannot take that person's vote. You can engage with them and try to change their mind (but also be open to having your own mind changed too, otherwise it's a disingenuous enterprise). Or you can eject block and cancel. If anything, that just drives them further from your social/political group. Hence the person who you blocked and cancelled starts to look around at the other "so called evil people" outside the bubble, and realise that many of them might be refugees from pleasantville , just like you. You can only see your former bubble after your pushed or pulled out of it.

    Bubbles can suck people in, but they can also push people out into the gravitational pull of other bubbles.

    • dyauspitr  1 day ago

      Humans tend towards being tribalistic. All ideas are not equally received because in my opinion some ideas are easier to accept because of that biological basis. We should all know that being tribalistic (own race/ethnicity/religion) has generally and continuously throughout history caused most of the world’s ills. From that perspective I’m tentatively in support of cancel culture. It seems like a non violent way to suppress ideas that groups easily uptake though deep down we know that those ideas are wrong and counterproductive.

sanity  2 days ago

[flagged]