Instead of normal discussion, an immediate escalation to personal attacks, accusations, strawmans, and projection. — Tzeentch

That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually.

You should've seen the reactions I got when on this forum I dared to imply that human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore should be allowed to choose whether to be vaccinated or not. — Tzeentch

With freedom comes responsibility. I'm fond of saying that.

'what is a woman?' — M777

'politically correct' answer, — M777

So yet another thread motivated by gender hysterics. Got it. :yawn:

That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually. — praxis

Sadly true. Where it differs is when the very same insecurity that moves individuals to behave that way manifests in crowds - mass formation.

With freedom comes responsibility. I'm fond of saying that. — praxis

I'm not looking for a discussion on that.

My point is that making a case for individual rights is by no means an extreme position. So why does it elicit an extreme response?

Because it deviates just slightly from the narrative. Enough to imply that the desired carte blanche on the use of power has moral borders.

And the individuals in the mass are subconsciously aware how their moral borders are fading.
Which they are, as evidenced by reactions like these:

Just as long as you never have contact with other humans. — Jackson

I know that's probably a joke, but such reactions weren't uncommon in the discussions I mentioned earlier. Some people genuinely think things like this.

The subconscious knows; the conscious mind doesn't want to know. An internal bomb that's potentially set off by even the slightest deviation of the narrative. No wonder such people become so volatile.

I know that's probably a joke, — Tzeentch

Not a joke. A virus can spread by being near people.

Oh. Then that message is about you.

Oh. Then that message is about you. — Tzeentch

What message?

That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually.
— praxis

Sadly true. Where it differs is when the very same insecurity that moves individuals to behave that way manifests in crowds - mass formation. — Tzeentch

Again, I've only heard of anti-vax protests. I haven't heard of vax protests or riots.

My point is that making a case for individual rights is by no means an extreme position. So why does it elicit an extreme response?

Because it deviates just slightly from the narrative. Enough to imply that the desired carte blanche on the use of power has moral borders.

And the individuals in the mass are subconsciously aware how their moral borders are fading.
Which they are, as evidenced by reactions like these: — Tzeentch

It concerns the spread of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, and the like, and you don't expect people to be up in arms about it???

Anyway, getting back to Desmet's totalitarianism, if the country is divided over something like COVID then how can the state be considered to be in complete control, or even directing the narrative?

Again, I've only heard of anti-vax protests. I haven't heard of vax protests or riots. — praxis

Maybe its because the state immediately jumped onto vaxxing bandwagon, so the vaxxers didn't have stuff to protest about. On the other hand, you could have seen lots of BLM, LGBT, anti-gun or pro-abortion riots going on.

I blame The Algorithm. — Streetlight

The Algorithm exacerbated - inflamed - a pre-existing condition.

Again, I've only heard of anti-vax protests. I haven't heard of vax protests or riots. — praxis

Governments are already flirting with forced vaccination. What do they have left to protest for? Gas chambers and concentration camps? Then again, nothing would surprise me at this point.

It concerns the spread of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, and the like, and you don't expect people to be up in arms about it??? — praxis

Covid does not belong in the same category as polio or smallpox. And even if it did, I would expect people to take fundamental human rights into account no matter what the subject matter is - not for talking of human rights to become taboo. That's already the writing on the wall.

Anyway, getting back to Desmet's totalitarianism, if the country is divided over something like COVID then how can the state be considered to be in complete control, or even directing the narrative? — praxis

People may be divided, but governments (unsurprisingly) have largely chosen the side of force, ergo lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc.

And it directs the narrative accordingly. News stations which are largely government-controlled provide one-sided information. Unwelcome information is simply suppressed. Perhaps not to the point where it cannot be heard at all, at least not yet, but that's not needed to foster this process of mass formation.

Though, the state is not in complete control. Perhaps the term "totalitarian" suggests as much, but what Desmet is describing is a tendency towards, and not a state of totalitarianism.

the state immediately jumped onto vaxxing bandwagon — M777

It's cute when Lauren Boebert (American Republican representative) says that no one's gonna make her get the Fauci Ouchie, and there's plently more like her in office.

you could have seen lots of ... LGBT, anti-gun or pro-abortion riots going on. — M777

Where do you get your news???

a simple question of 'what is a woman? — M777

It's only a simple question if you have no concern at all for persons with gender dysphoria (et al) trying to make sense of their complicated feelings.

In short, if you're a fucking asshole - it's a simple question.

People may be divided, but governments have largely chosen the side of force, ergo lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc.

And it directs the narrative accordingly. — Tzeentch

Trump was againts lockdowns, as I recall. Granted he wasn't much of a leader.

Perhaps the term "totalitarian" suggests as much, but what Desmet is describing is a tendency towards, and not a state of totalitarianism. — Tzeentch

It's a scary term though, you have to admit, and fear motivates. He said so himself in the video, if I'm not mistaken.

"Thought police are very bad. This is why we must actually rigorously police gender and bodies in real life. I will be very Opppreseddddd if I can't do this". — Streetlight

Bears repeating.

I think liberals have a caricature of people one the right in their heads, like "fox watching, bible thumping, guns touting rednecks". :) Of course, we, in return, see libs as "prius driving, bed wetting" :) — M777

It sounds like you've never turned on Fox News. Alt-Right reality is now a caricature of itself. Turn on Fox and see - the simulacrum.


The most popular cable news channel on Earth. Millions and millions and millions of sympathetic viewers tuning out and tuning in.

It's a scary term though, ... — praxis

Certainly.

And whatever impressions about it may linger in our minds, they likely pale in comparison to the horror of the historical reality of it.

What I found particularly interesting about Desmet's theory, is how totalitarianism distinguishes itself from classical dictatorships in that a dictatorship is instated from the top down, by a more or less rational ruler.

Totalitarianism on the other hand springs from the population itself. The population willingly cedes control, willingly gives up its freedom and willingly follows its ideas down into the abyss.

And it's this willingness that I observe in public discourse, and even on this forum. Willingness to ignore human rights, to stigmatize and dehumanize dissenting voices, a desire to see people who think differently suffer, or worse.

It's all very sobering.

a simple question of 'what is a woman?
— M777

It's only a simple question if you have no concern at all for persons with gender dysphoria (et al) trying to make sense of their complicated feelings.

In short, if you're a fucking asshole - it's a simple question. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's interesting how a philosophy forum can sometimes nourish low-brow, Right wing populism.

Slavoj Žižek seems to have a better grasp of it, in my inexpert opinion. Desmet seemed almost comically biased.

So yet another thread motivated by gender hysterics. Got it. — Xtrix

There's a rash of right-wing hysteria about the woman definition thing going on. I was reading an unrelated news piece today and underneath it was a comment claiming you could be imprisoned in Britain for denying that a woman can have testicles (!). More of the scary totalitarian narrative. The government may try to kill you, so you need a gun, and they will imprison you for speaking 'common sense', so you need to fight political correctness.

Seems to me the banal reality is that the person on the street might hesistate when asked to define a woman because there's no longer a very simplistic definition. Society has injected some nuance into it. And not everyone agrees on the answer. Scary, if you want one simple answer to be true and no one to be allowed to consider the actual complexity of the topic. Speaking of totalitarianism...

They're out there in masses looking for a megaphone.

"This was fine in the fifties, but by the time the sixties rolled around the internal thought police were making people hesitant about considering women subservient. If you asked the average Joe on the street if this depiction of women was OK, some would appear afraid to say it was. Very unhealthy and a sign of the totalitarian regime to come."



Well, no, actually, like most 'politically correct' ideas reactionaries are scared of, it's called progress.

Reminds me of the Mechanical Bride.

Didn't know a tie could have that kind of power :joke:

The tie designs are at least sufficiently abominable to accurately reflect the minds behind the marketing idea. :smile:

I can't decide which is worse, the tie designs or the ad message.

Fact Check-No evidence of pandemic ‘mass formation psychosis’, say experts speaking to Reuters

“Mass formation psychosis” is not an academic term recognized in the field of psychology, nor is there evidence of any such phenomenon occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple experts in crowd psychology have told Reuters. — Reuters Fact Check

...but of course that's what they would say, isn't it?

:lol:

After watching how people in the street would immediately tense up, after being asked a simple question of 'what is a woman?' and tried to give a 'politically correct' answer, you are getting a feeling that they very well know the answer, yet are scared sh*tless of saying it or, probably, even thinking it.

In my opinion such internal blocking of engaging with certain thoughts is a very bad idea, as it noticeably hinders one's ability to think clearly.

What do you think? — M777

Well, then, what is a woman according to you?

Just want to add, I'm not suggesting equivalence of all anti-PC crusades; some are more justified than others. What I am suggesting though is that there is nothing to be afraid of. PC ideas that stand the test of time do so because they're good ideas. And the anti-PC crowd have failed throughout history to stem the tide of 'political correctness' not because totalitarianism won but because they have consistently been on the wrong side of progress. Whether or not the 'PC' multi-faceted/nuanced definition of 'woman' will stand the test of time is yet to be seen. But if it does, it will become normalised because it is a good idea; or to put it in libertarian terms, it will flourish in the marketplace of ideas by outcompeting worse ideas. This process is not totalitarianism but its opposite. And if that's what you're afraid of, then your actual bogeyman is freedom.

...but of course that's what they would say, isn't it? — Banno

Those damned leftist radicals over at Reuters.

mass formation — Tzeentch

"Mass formation psychosis" is not an appropriate psychiatric term or a clinical diagnosis to describe "groupthink."

Terms like "mass delusion" and "mass psychosis" are being used inappropriately as pejoratives to denigrate our ideological opponents.

Psychiatric terminology should not be used to advance political agendas.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202201/does-mass-formation-psychosis-really-exist