Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The ‘Kafka Trap’: No One Can Ever Be Innocent Again
One of the crucial philosophies trending today on both Twitter and on Facebook involves the perils of discussing anything with those outside your inner circle of friends. Why such perils exist has to do with the phenomenon now called the “Kafka Trap.”
Of course, to be part of a society wherein the individual may not wish to share discourse with other people of vastly different beliefs now carries its own very real perils. The differences between the people inside Thought Bubble A and people inside Thought Bubble B become more and more pronounced in direct proportion to the length of time during which neither side has been able to successfully debate various topics with the other side.
From the above-linked article:
- Critical thinking
- 7 linguistic tricks people use to deceive and manipulate you
- Just accept the ‘facts’:
– All white people are racist
– It’s impossible for a black person to be racist
– “Believe women” or you’re a rape apologist
– Gender is a social construct
– White privilege
Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston.” This is an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable. Notably, if the Model A kafkatrap is true, the world is divided into two kinds of people:
(a) those who admit they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and
(b) those who are guilty of thoughtcrime because they will not admit to being guilty of thoughtcrime.
“No one can ever be innocent. The subject must be prevented from noticing that this logic convicts and impeaches the operator of the kafkatrap!” – Eric Raymond
The full article is quite enlightening. It fully details each and every one of the various seven linguistic tricks by which the opposing side manages to carry the weight of “proof” that they are the better individuals and therefore they and they alone can win any argument.
Even the master of modern-day logical persuasion, Jordan Peterson, has been whiplashed during a debate in which an angry black preacher and an Oxfordian gentleman managed to pull off various Kafkatrap illogical fallacies. Although he managed to slam those two during his rebuttal, when the attacks first went down, his ability to look more convincing than they were was seriously impaired.
Kafka is the master of a surrealist style of writing, in which strange and bewildering events in the lives of his characters suddenly, unexpectedly crop up. These events pose insurmountable odds.
The idea behind the Kafka trap has to do with Kafka’s tale “The Trial” in which an unassuming clerk is hauled into court, where he is not offered any clues as to why he is being charged, and he cannot manage a defense. This is due to the Catch 22-ness of the trap of illogical but powerful behaviors and statements of the judge and others that are used to snare him into their judgment of guilty.
I invite everyone here to take the time to read the article. It will perhaps nudge away some of the weight you may have been carrying from the last time you engaged in debating some snowflake friend or relative and then they somehow trapped you into the bleak corner of “thoughtcrime.”Published in General
This is one of those posts that are sufficiently informative that comments are almost unnecessary. The link is spot on, and I particularly enjoyed the part on “doublespeak,” all the while thinking of “Silence is Violence.”
If silence is violence, they should shut up. That would teach me.
Stupid is as stupid says.
In case any Jordan Peterson followers are intrigued by some of the difficulties he faced at a “Munk” debate, here is the link:
Thank you for posting this — I especially liked Mr. Peters0n’s team mate’s reference to the quote about “the importance of the ability to deal with ideas gracefully”, combined with Mr. Peterson’s observation that the idea of free speech includes the need to be tolerant when someone expresses himself clumsily, while trying to sort things out in his own mind.
When are non-leftists going to realize that the most successful strategy for dealing with the Left is to not engage? Engaging with the Left only gives them fuel for more attacks. They enjoy watching their victims suffer. There’s no debate to be had; no persuasion is possible.
Steer clear of these people if you can or keep your own council if you can’t. Struggling with leftists in the open is an invitation to be massacred. Anyone who does will be turned into an example of a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, Nazi, alt-right-adjacent hate figure. Don’t be their next victim.
Thanks for posting the interview.
What struck me was the Politically Correct’s side demanding essentially these two conflicting ideas:
A. There must be an equality of outcome for everyone
B. There is a repeated denial of reality as being some sort of relative judgement that cannot be ascertained with certainty , so then the question becomes “what is the reality of the outcome that is to made equal and how is it judged?
I think the Left will answer that everyone needs to compensated monetarily equally without consideration for situation like talent, effort, educations etc and that as I understand it is the Marxist view of what equality should mean which in the end the fundamental base for Politically correct ideas.
So let’s start with the idea that everyone is to paid the same. There will no allowance for effort, talent, time spent, creativity, difficulty, whether it is fun or not, etc.
So the more difficult, boring and laborious jobs will likely in short order not be done, and the effort given to the other jobs will suffer pretty quickly because there is no incentive to work harder or better at all. So quickly the standard of living for everyone must fall drastically because the often harder but necessary jobs will not get done. The standard of living will fall then likely to subsistence or below subsistence levels.
But that will not be enough to achieve an equal outcome , because everyone will not live in the same level of luxury and thus outcomes will still not be equal. Some will reside in nice places and some will not. So everyone must be made to live in the same conditions which will be the lowest common denominator and thus close to squalor.
But that will not be enough because some people will be more beautiful or handsome than others, which will cause an unequal outcome so people will have to be scarred so everyone will be equally ugly.
But that will not be enough because there will be racial inequality so everyone’s skin will have be burned so everyone’s racial identity will be obscured to create an equal outcome in life.
But that will not be enough because some people will be sterile or infertile and unable to have children, so everyone will have to be made sterile so there will be an equal outcome of no more kids.
But that will not be enough because some people will have handicaps and most will not , so everyone must be made to have a severe handicap to insure an equal outcome.
But that will not be enough because some will be with deaf or blind, so everyone must be made to be either deaf or blind.
But that will not be enough because of all of the above, many are dying at an early age. So everyone over 5 must commit suicide to achieve equality of outcome, with the rest left expected to die soon.
Ahhhhhh, Socialist Nirvana at Last!
The demands are just a pretext. The objective is social disintegration and division. China is smuggling weapons into the US. This is an insurrection.
Unsk, so often when I have attempted debate with someone on the Left, I get a headache because I end up perturbed about something quite vague that was disturbing since I could not break it down into its logical components.
Your “B” explanation is exactly what I have been trying to describe. Thank you so much.