[Virtus]

Looks like a good primer on these



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_supp...techniques

The Master suppression techniques is a framework articulated in 1945 by the Norwegian psychologist and philosopher Ingjald Nissen. These techniques identified by Nissen are ways to indirectly suppress and humiliate opponents. In the late 1970s the framework was popularized by Norwegian social psychologist Berit Ås, who reduced Nissen's original nine means to five, and claimed this was a technique mostly used in the workplace by men against women. Master suppression techniques are defined as strategies of social manipulation by which a dominant group maintains such a position in a (established or unexposed) hierarchy. They are very prominent in Scandinavian scholarly and public debate, where the expression is also used to refer to types of social manipulation not part of Ås's framework. Master suppression techniques are sometimes called domination techniques.

[Virtus]

Also see Kafkatrapping http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

[Phoenix]

What are the best counter-tactics to this anti-rational-discussion technique?

[Virtus]

(11-10-2014 02:57 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

What are the best counter-tactics to this anti-rational-discussion technique?

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl...rev=search

[sixsix]

(11-10-2014 02:57 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

What are the best counter-tactics to this anti-rational-discussion technique?

It really depends on the social context.

Are you with friends in a bar, or with coworkers during a workshop?

Ignoring it can often be the smartest, but for many guys with a 'strong internalized ethos' that seems like impossible cowardice.

When you do engage, don't take it seriously. It's not gonna be a logical discussion so don't aim for that. View it as a verbal game, a battle of wits, trying to make the kafkatrapper look emotional.

Ridicule the reasoning.

Make them explicitly say what they imply, so they can't deny.

Reminds me of The Rearden:

Quote:

Passive Aggressors have a weakness that you can exploit. They desperately want to engage in confrontation for whatever reason. Maybe they feel powerless in general and have typically felt this way since adolescence and winning conflicts are a major ego boost for them. Maybe they are trapped in middle management hell. Maybe they have unresolved issues about something, and you remind them of those unresolved issues. In some form you are the embodiment of whatever it is they have issues with, be it because of your race, your culture, your personality, your archetype [...]. For some reason, they have a need for conflict and victory in general, and something about you in particular especially triggers that need for victory.

But on the flipside, they are deathly afraid of conflict, specifically the risk of losing because losing a conflict would just reinforce their unresolved issues and sense of powerlessness. They will only do open conflict if they feel 100% sure they can win it. Open conflict, where both sides know they are in a conflict and go head to head openly, is high risk. It leads to a definitive winner and a definitive loser. It is the sign of a mature man to not only be willing to risk losing, but also, if he does indeed lose, to lose gracefully (this is a big reason why sports are considered to build character, and also why so many beta males resent athletes). Since they are immature men, they do not know how to lose gracefully without having their whole ego and self-worth shattered by the loss.

These people, SJWs, Passive Aggressors, beta males, all have in common that they are weak and use vagueness and groupthink insinuations to debate. They actively avoid the use of clearly defined concepts. They are never part of the strong group, e.g. hot girl or player, and have to use word plays to inverse obvious reality.

You need to reframe the debate by insisting on having him/her explain what she means. "You know what it means." Play dumb. You don't know what it means so this person has to show their true colors.

[Grange]

Just found Eric Raymond's "kafkatrapping" piece, and lo and behold it's already been posted. Still, some more:

Quote:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.

My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

This is almost exactly the way the kafkatrap operates in religious and political argument. Real crimes – actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals – are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings.

A close variant of the model C is the model P: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} system.” For the model P to work, the subject must be prevented from noticing that the demand to self-condemn is not based on the subject’s own actions or choices or feelings, but rather on an in-group identification ascribed by the operator of the kafkatrap.

It is essential to the operation of all three of the variants of the kafkatrap so far described that the subject’s attention be deflected away from the fact that no wrongdoing by the subject, about which the subject need feel personally guilty, has actually been specified. The kafkatrapper’s objective is to hook into chronic self-doubt in the subject and inflate it, in much the same way an emotional abuser convinces a victim that the abuse is deserved – in fact, the mechanism is identical. Thus kafkatrapping tends to work best on weak and emotionally vulnerable personalities, and poorly on personalities with a strong internalized ethos.

That last part explains why it's so common on Tumblr but not on RVF, I guess.

[Tytalus]

I'm curios about this. Anyone else have experience with this?!

[getdownonit]

After reading the links and text posted here, it's clear that these techniques can be applied in any social situation, not just one where "privilege" is involved. This theory apparently became popular under second wave feminism, as a response to patriarchal oppression. Now feminists and other SJW have coopted the suppression techniques to further their agenda.

The kafkatrapping essay is insightful, as the 'check your privilege' type of "strategy" encapsulates most, if not all, of the suppression techniques into one inane comeback.

As far as techniques to counter the suppression, it'll depend on the scenario but it seems that you need to speak up and address the obvious ad hominem attacks or belittlement. If you're at least aware of what's going on, and confident in your situation, you should be able to avoid being marginalized or bogged down by the suppression.

btw, I don't see an obvious connection to Game here, maybe KAL is a better place for this thread

[Rangarr]

(01-15-2015 11:30 AM)Grange Wrote:  

Quote:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.”

When in the past I've tried to debate some leftists on other forums, I've often encountered this one and was just floored by the sheer ridiculousness of it. It usually arose when one would argue about the harmfulness of homosexuality. Then their knee jerk reaction, with 100% certainty, would be either a subtle insinuation or an overt proclamation that obviously you're a gay yourself if you're THAT much concerned with the sexuality of other people. A self-loathing closet gay, obviously. "Man those darn gays REALLY have you riled up huh? You must be thinking a lot of what gays do behind closed doors. Are you sure you don't have something to tell us OP? Do you like sucking dicks, is that it? Come on out, it'll all be better, just admit it".

Of course the irony is that it never occured to the leftists that while they're proclaiming that there's nothing wrong with being gay, they were using the fact that someone is gay as an insult against me. The doublethink was strong in them. The argument becomes even sillier if you just change the context:
"Oh you sure have a big problem with blacks/jews/russian/hispanics/muslims/whatever.... do you want to tell us something? Are you maybe secretly a blacks/jews/russian/hispanics/muslims/whatever?"
"Oh you sure have a big problem with women... do you want to tell us something? Are you maybe secretly a women?"

One can easily see the sheer absurdity of these arguments, but somehow they weren't able to perceive it when the topic was faggots

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The best thing to do is mentioned above:

1). Ask them what the phrase "check your privilege" means.

2). When they bring up "white," ask "what is white?" Most whites break down into subsets.

3). You can either say "But I though race didn't exist" or "I thought race is a construct?" Then call them out for being retro, since progressives now believe this.

4). Or you can tell them which sub-sector of "white" you belong to: Irish, Italian, Russian. Whatever it is, odds are there was some serious "oppression" going on and your ancestors had to leave for America (or were nearly destroyed by some Ameircan tragedy if they were already here).

5). Tell them that by making blanket statements and not knowing INDIVIDUALS, that's a form of prejudice. They're invalidating your family's history of oppression (poverty, prejudice, ethnic cleansing, Dust Bowl Depression, police brutality), therefore they apparently support this when it suits them -- just like warlords and demagogues.

6). If "male" comes up instead of white, it's easy enough to mention all the men who died fighting wars (my family has a bunch) or were disabled.

Most of us don't come from royalty. It's not hard to go back a few generations to find lack of "privilege."

For example, I find it laughable they call Italian-Americans white and privileged now when around 50 years ago Mario Cuomo graduated first in his law school class but could not get hired by a law firm because of his Italian ancestry. So how did Italians magically become privileged? Did someone wave a wand?

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

There's no point in ever engaging in logical or rhetorical debate with a SJW, or race baiter, or feminist nutjob. Just immediately dismiss them as a wacko, and point out that almost everybody thinks that SJW stuff has jumped the shark. You can start out by pretending like they are kidding, and congratulate them for some hilarious trolling. Then if they say they're serious, look at them like they said their grandmother is an elk, and say everybody knows that movement has jumped the shark.

Then ignore them, or ridicule them if they keep getting in your face. Get them to have an meltdown, while you act mystified at their insane behavior.

[Ensam]

(01-17-2015 04:04 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

Then ignore them, or ridicule them if they keep getting in your face. Get them to have an meltdown, while you act mystified at their insane behavior.

Exactly. The first few times I heard girls talk about 'checking privilege' it bothered me and I couldn't put my finger on it. Then I realized it was horseshit and stopped worrying about it. If you don't want to bang the girl or any of her friends just walk away. If you want to bang her then you gotta get a read on why she's bringing it up. In my experience there are two types of girls who will talk about it (either accusing you of being privileged or examining her own sense of privilege):
- She sincerely buys into the idea. Just listen to this girl, ask her questions, use it to bond. Doesn't matter if you don't believe in it, you don't even have to say you do, just let her get whatever is on her mind out.
- She's deeply insecure and is trying to feel superior to other people and using it as a way to prop her self up. With this type of girl you can be a little more combative as long as you do it in a detached way. Either agree and amplify or call her out on her shit with a wink and a nod. She'll easily give into anybody with a stronger sense of self than she has.

[Sonsowey]

Just Say No.

[dispenser]

If you really are forced to interact with these people in person, and want to be honest, then I think that the gentle, quasi-blue pill stuff you might hear in a black and white movie would be best.
Blunt red-pill stuff only prompts blunt leftism. Pretend to have no "theories" that they can butt heads with.
This is not the same as acting like some "aw, shucks" character, but is more like taking your ideas for granted, as if they were unshakably ordinary and not something to get heated about.
Engaging in serious discourse with these people only perpetuates their arguments. It excites them to argue. Argument is absolutely all these jackoffs have.

The women involved in this leftist stuff are either undateable, lesbians, or sexually unsatisfied. The latter are shit-testing left and right, like a someone groping in the dark for the lightswitch.

[RawGod]

"i first became aware of my privilege at 14, when I checked with a ruler. At first I was cool with it, but I realized that as so much of it is due to girth as well as length, it can be intimidating. So these days I'm humble about it."

Try that.

[Geomann180]

(01-20-2015 06:09 AM)RawGod Wrote:  

"i first became aware of my privilege at 14, when I checked with a ruler. At first I was cool with it, but I realized that as so much of it is due to girth as well as length, it can be intimidating. So these days I'm humble about it."

Try that.

I like that approach. If they won't define privilege, define it for them.*

First you set the trap:

Yes, I can tell you upset because your lack of privilege.

Then you set the bait:

Try viagra, maybe that will get it up.

Try cialis, maybe that will make it bigger.

Or

Try padding your bra with toilet paper to make them look bigger.

Then when they huff and puff, "What does my dick size/bra size have to do with what we're talking about? / My dick size/bra size has nothing to do with what we're talking about!"

They just took the bait - spring the trap:

I agree! So why don't you shut the fuck up ('because you started it' is implied)

G

*This is conjecture, haven't tried it.