Remember that time, something like ten-or-so years ago, when American far-leftists, starting from university students, were strongly instructed to snap their fingers instead of clapping in order to show approval? Because, apparently, hand clapping is "triggering" while, apparently, finger-snapping is not. Up until it actually was. Unsurprisingly some years later far-leftists were forbidden from finger-snapping and were instructed to use "jazz hands" instead (although you could still see the stupid finger-snapping thing being used even several years after that.)
That was, of course, by far not the only such incident of behavioral control among the American far left (and, obviously, spread to many other western countries like a cancer.) There are tons and tons of examples. "You can't do this", "you have to do this", "you can't use these words", "you have to use these words", etc. etc. Even more than physical behavior they just love controlling their own speech: Which words are allowed, which are forbidden, which are mandatory... It's an ever-growing and ever-changing list of banned and mandatory actions, behavior and speech.
And the thing is that they enforce those rules very aggressively. With some of the things they might claim that it's just a "recommendation" and that it's "not mandatory", but in practice they still enforce them as strongly as the outright mandatory rules.
What makes it very distinctive is the sheer amount of rules, how most of those rules are completely nonsensical and, especially, how strongly they enforce those rules, often with extremely severe consequences for people (especially among their own ranks) who do not follow the rules.
Have you noticed how most other political and other similar sociopolitical movements and groups lack such rules and, especially, such strong rules enforcement?
Take the American conservatives, for example. Sure, they have a lot of ideas, notions, principles and opinions that most of them share, but they are rarely so minute and nitpicky, they are rarely about particular behaviors or words and, especially, they generally are not enforced so aggressively (and, most of the time, not at all.) I can't see any "rules" among American conservatives about how they should behave, what they mustn't and must do, especially not on the completely trivial level of, for example, how to cheer, or which particular words can and cannot be used, lest you be punished by your own fellows.
Perhaps the only thing that I can think of that some (but by no means all) conservatives love to enforce is their Christian religion. A sub-group of conservatives might be unusually aggressive towards someone who presents dissent of Christianity and is not an open Christian. However, while this was more prevalent in the past, I think even American conservatives have become significantly more tolerant of non-Christians among their own ranks. (All the major American conservative commentators and activists I see on YouTube are strongly and openly Christians or Jews, but don't seem to have much problem with people among their ranks who are not.)
Even then, this is a very large ideological disagreement, not nitpicking about hand-clapping or the use of a forbidden word or expression.
There's a clear reason why the far left enforces such nitpicky rules about behavior and speech so aggressively: It's about control.
This is a very typical tactic used by religious cults: Most of such cults are very similar in this respect: They have all kinds of customs and rules that every member has to follow, and which often seem silly and asinine to outsiders. However, the cult members themselves are so accustomed to following those rules that they themselves don't find them nonsensical anymore. They find them normal, acceptable and desirable. Most of these rules are equally minor and nitpicky as the ones by the American far left.
The goal of such behavioral control is also quite clear: When members of the cult are so deeply conditioned to following even the most minor and asinine rules, and they are utterly indoctrinated into following those rules for the fear of repercussions, punishment and rejection from their community, they are much easier to then follow instructions that are much more fundamental and drastic. They are much less likely to be hesitant to follow the more radical demands, which may be detrimental to they themselves, to others, or to society. Things that they would have never done if they weren't members of the cult nor indoctrinated into following all the silly rules.
In other words, the goal of all those silly rules is to instill a strong sense of conformity: You must conform to all the rules of the cult, or else there will be severe consequences.
This is in drastic contrast to the behavior of non-cultish groups, even some religious ones: These don't have such nitpicky rules nor do they strongly enforce them. They consider freedom and individuality more important than conformity to the cause. They rely on the members of the group participating willingly, on their own free will, rather than being indoctrinated and forced into it by the fear of punishment. Willing participants do not need such silly rules nor such strong enforcement of them.
Such willing participants will also naturally hesitate if other people in the group start doing and demanding objectionable things. Members with a sense of freedom and individuality will dare to question the actions of others, and to hesitate doing it themselves. In a good non-controlling environment their hesitation will be respected and they will not be pressured into doing anything they don't want to. They will not be restricted by silly rules.
Which is, of course, the exact opposite of the American far left.
Comments
Post a Comment