Highest Rated Comments


ServetusM129 karma

The whole concept of 'white privilege' is the exact type of ideological taxonomy Mao used to vilify people (Except he tended to use social status over ethnicity, but when you hear people discuss what 'whiteness' is, you realize that it's often used the same way in America). In fact, many of the terms Mao used for counter-revolutionaries roughly translate into the English concept 'privilege' or various forms or another. It is a kind of labeling system seen broadly in witch hunter scenarios, a flexible label that can single handily reduce someone's position in another person's eyes and reduce any arguments they make to being simply propaganda from people looking to protect their 'privilege' (Or ideology).

It's a very Kafka esque branding technique, if you are privileged and argue you aren't, it's only because you're afraid of admitting and losing it. Like if a Bourgeois in the cultural revolution argued against the methods, it's because he wants to keep his unjust wealth, or if he argued he wasn't a Bourgeois, it only proved he was because he was arguing against the revolutionaries! (And only a Bourgeois would do that). Or if a Communist in the U.S. argued during the McCarthy era, it's because he wanted to protect his subversive friends, and if he said he wasn't a Communist and was arguing because it was the right thing to do, it meant he obviously was a Communist because who else would argue with the very American Anti-American activities committee! It's a very old method to quickly side step rational critique by labeling the person, and having the label be set up so arguing against it proves it.

The whole recent PC movement has very troubling similarities with the cultural revolution; or at least the rhetoric which began it. Easy hatred for those perceived to be in power (Even if most of them aren't, they simply share a trait with those that are--like professors and political/business leaders both being educated, so obviously both are part of the same evil ruling class), a large label for those who seem to benefit from power (Even if most do not) and most of all (By far the most important) a scape goat for demagogues to blame difficult issues on. Something easy for the common person to digest, something easy to identify with and make out. (Really important when you're controlling a mob--you don't want to give the other person a chance to be a human, having a label that is quick to dispense and easy to ID makes it far easier for the mob to prevent the target from speaking.)

The point being that things like the cultural revolution rely on the market place of ideas being closed. "White privilege" is a concept Mao himself would have enjoyed a great deal, because it quickly distills a complex set of social issues down to 'this group is bad' (Even if the rhetoric around it says people shouldn't feel bad about their privilege--the way it's used in conversation is almost always meant to disrupt and shut down the conversation, or make the observations of those with privileged less poignant, less empathetic). This is the problem with broad labels--in reality, some people were just bad, or willfully mislead others, 'white privilege' had nothing to do with it, it was based purely on ideological sympathies overruling empirical reality, which happens for every ideology; from Catholicism to Communism to Fascism (But this is another troubling similarity with the modern PC movement, that feelings towards things>>empirical evidence, which is a tactic Mao also liked to use, because it made it even easier to facilitate the above, where people can brush aside the empirical reality in order to defend their ideology, because it 'feels' right. And making people 'feel' good with righteous indignation is very easy, and a great way to manipulate a mob.).

ServetusM85 karma

I'm so glad this thread is here. I can't believe the answers here. Millions of people ended up dying due to Mao's insane power grabbing, hundreds of thousands a direct result of witch hunting and mob violence for perceived slights. I'm totally shocked at the casualness of the support seen throughout the AMA; not an ounce of remorse for the atrocities that happened (That are BOUND to happen when a leader encourages mob mentalities to rule)

I'm always so glad when Reddit is critical of other powers, like the U.S.'s imperialism, many people rightly take the U.S. to task over the lives lost, or they speak to the errors of Colonialism. Going through this AMA and not seeing (At first) any questioning of the sheer scope of the tragedy contained within the cultural revolution was shocking. (Again, we're talking a loss of life, when starvation and deaths from lack of doctors, government leaders, engineers, and other needed personnel because they were 'purged', in the millions, one of the worst losses of life and periods sustained human misery the planet has seen.)

ServetusM72 karma

lol, this is very true. But Saplosky, while he is a hippy dippy, actually does research into stress related damage to the body. He's not just some homeopath that chants about good feelings. The point of the book is essentially an illustration of how damaging stress is clinically because of changes in hormones (Glucocorticoid) can be. It's an insight into why, despite the hormone improving short term performance a great deal, most animals only secrete it when trying to run for their lives. While humans and other social mammals (Primates) do it chronically.

In essence, a Zebra has a tremendous stress reaction when a lion chases it. Humans, more and more, seem to have stress reactions for multiple hours several days a week--and because of our longer life spans, this is extremely damaging. Managing stress for a species that actually tends to out-live the apex of its breeding cycle thanks to social dynamics is something that's required, is the long and short of it. It's as important as diet, for example. But most people don't realize how damaging being under stress is, hence the book.

I know the title is silly, trust me, I roll my eyes anytime someone points to nature and says "oh if we could only live like that"--The people who do obviously have never spent any time in nature. It sucks, it's effectively a massive gladiatorial arena that has weapons which have been honed for billions of years. I'll take my human ability to control nature, thanks. That said, the books title isn't as silly as it sounds.

ServetusM42 karma

Have you ever gotten pushed or hit by someone who was startled and freaked out to the point they just wanted to get you away from them? If so, how does something like that get handled?

ServetusM17 karma

Don't you feel you're simply railing against the democratization of information access/dissemination that has previously been monopolized by journalists and large media? How do these people differ from polemics and op eds a "Journalist" might write up? Many OP eds can be downright propagandist too.

Does you being a journalist severely bias you in this? After all, it is you industry these platforms are killing.