The woke are stuck in a real conundrum: They want to espouse policy that would allow government authorities to trample the bodily autonomy of their fellow citizens, but they don’t want to think of themselves as the bad guys.
The problem is, that literally makes them the bad guys.
It’s a very inconvenient situation, because they think they have very good, valid reasons for their interests, and those reasons totally make the human rights violations they’re pushing for ok. They are just having a hard time convincing everyone else.
Gosh, you guys… What’s an ideological cult gotta do to get some peace of mind around here?
Regular listeners might remember how, in the openers for episodes 71 & 72 of HBR Talk, I introduced the concept of the Wrongthink Boogeyman, a person whose association with disapproved thoughts or opinions makes him scary to woke ideologues. I described the polarization of ideas as we’ve shifted from perceiving them as concepts to be evaluated, to being confronted with arguments from a good vs evil standpoint… rightthink, or approved ideas, vs wrongthink, or disapproved ideas plus.
What do I mean by that?
Rightthink is anything that is in agreement with or fits in with woke ideology. Wrongthink is a little more complicated. In addition to being anything that is not in agreement with woke ideology, wrongthink is infectious. If an expressed thought contains even a grain of pushback against a rightthink idea or even opens a question not accounted for by rightthink, it is tainted with wrongthink, and is therefore becomes wrongthink itself. That wrongthink is then associated with whatever the woke ideologue decides is the exact opposite of her position, or the worst prejudices she can imagine, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the original idea, or not. And remember, to an ideologue, wrongthink isn’t just being incorrect. It’s eeeeeeevil. It’s dangerous, and scary. It’s not just disagreement with rightthink. It’s an attack on it, and an attack on anyone who subscribes to it. It’s probably hiding under your bed right now, waiting to grab your ankles if you get up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. And you should be very afraid, because remember… wrongthink infects everything it touches.
Now, the ideologue can weave this idea of wrongthink into a threat narrative.
If you are expressing the evil wrongthink, you must be a bad person with bad character, who intends to use your speech for bad purposes… while the ideologue, expresser of rightthink, must be a good person with good character who intends to use her speech for good. You are clearly trying to infect the poor, innocent ideologue with the putrid taint of your wicked mental processes! How dare you bring your treacherous opinions with their dastardly associations anywhere near good and normal people like her! You have inflicted feelings upon her! She’s a victim of that experience!
She now feels justified in claiming to be afraid of you and your aggressive ideas. She can frame your articulation and defense of them as mortal threats, and you as a monster for espousing them: The Wrongthink Boogeyman, holder of disapproved beliefs!
Now that you’ve been branded with this label, the ideologue can feel comfortable refusing to consider any information that comes from you, because it’s clearly associated with evil isms and phobias. In the past, we’ve talked about how this is used to dismiss or outright silence dissent, but in today’s woke environment it has gone a step further.
The ideologues are starting to describe your wrongthink in terms of violence. No, they’re not claiming you engaged in anything you’d recognize as a violent act, and their description isn’t necessarily going to use the word violence. They’ve upped the ante so you don’t have to have done anything at all, and they don’t have to level an accusation. All they have to do is counter a claim, whether you made it or not, by stating that your political faction, whatever it is, is not peaceful.
Well, what is a social phenomenon like politics, if it’s not peaceful?
And because you’re the wrongthink boogeyman, they don’t have to prove you did anything violent. They just have to loosely associate you with disapproved ideas, and then any idea or interest you have is tainted by that association. Are you protesting against a mandate that overrides your right to informed consent where medical procedures are concerned? Well shame on you, you racist, sexist, homophobe! Your body autonomy is violent, and your violence is a threat to the entire community. Something must be done to put a stop to your reign of terror!
Your detractor now feels justified in advocating government counter-violence against the horrifying, vicious, bliss-eating personal boundaries of degenerates like you.
Now isn’t that convenient?
This week, HBR Talk will be examining the claim that the Canadian Trucker Protest was not peaceful (and everything the government has done in response was justified) through a look at an article referenced as evidence to that effect. You can find viewing and listening options for the livestream on honeybadgerbrigade.com.
Opening Monolog transcript
Support the badgers: http://www.feedthebadger.com
Patreon us on patreon: http://www.patreon.com/honeybadgerradio
Subscribe to us on minds https://www.minds.com/HoneyBadgerRadio
Follow us on twitter! https://twitter.com/HoneyBadgerBite
Join our Facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/honeybadgerradio
Watch us on twitch! https://streamlabs.com/honeybadgerradio
Prim Reaper – https://www.youtube.com/user/Aceticacidplease
Deborah Powney – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DOT_N7Ib0Pwi4m4XbX04A
- What has psychology forgotten about boys since the ’60s? | HBR Talk 279 - September 28, 2023
- Does this 1960s case study expose modern psychology’s flaws? | HBR Talk 278 - September 21, 2023
- Two things experienced by over 1/3 of Kenyan men | HBR Talk 277 - September 14, 2023