@anonymous @PurpCat @ins0mniak

> I do think this is not entirely natural, that forces (whom/whatever they may be) are helping to drive this division.

Yeah, anything big happens and someone will try to coopt it. Like, he's got these observations about how people would act and you've got Bernays laying a lot of these things out and talking about how to steer them. Like Bernays is the reason for the stereotype of the chain-smoking feminist: he worked for the tobacco companies and women didn't typically smoke so half the market was closed, and he was tasked with getting them to start. His strategy was to get smoking associated with suffrage and it worked more or less and then became a self-perpetuating thing.

> At least we could generally agree to not attack someone not directly involved. We can’t even do that anymore. I could probably speculate forever on the why. Perhaps another day.

The ingroup is the ingroup, the outgroup is an undifferentiated mass of terrible people, so "Liberals get the bullet, too" turns into a communist slogan because although the liberals are also opposed to right-wing policies, they are not part of the communists' ingroup.

> I mean that’s kind of anywhere anymore right?

Yeah. Anywhere that happens and can be sort of centrally enforced, so as long as you don't build a rudder, no one can put their hands on the wheel and move the boat. This is why the mastodongs keep trying to build a centralized authority over the fediverse: they want a rudder. I'm sure most of them don't understand what happens when you build a rudder, but I'm also certain that some of them do.

> I am getting flashbacks to motherboard/mainboard and master/slave.

Same group, yeah, but a different tack: Tufekci was saying that if you learn to sort an array of integers (I'm not exaggerating) without injecting social justice into the curriculum, then you would be hacking out code for the Nazis to sort Jews in no time. (She went on to write some poorly conceived but widely disseminated article in Wired about how freedom of speech should be eliminated because sometimes people use it to advocate for positions she doesn't like, to no one's surprise.)

> The most descriptive and accurate words aren’t okay because racism. Not to mention the whole discussion was fucking retarded and gay. Probably fake too.

Yeah, that tactic actually goes back to the Ada Initiative, and if you read anything about them, even the stuff they wrote about themselves, you'll see where the problem came from.
tritone.mp3
perfect_fifth.mp3