Volunteer thought police

I’m endlessly fascinated by the fact that the American Progressive regime has a volunteer thought police.

Most regimes have had to pay or threaten citizens into acting as thought police. However, many American Progressives take to the internet every day looking (far and wide, it would seem) for things to be offended by. What motivates these people?

For example, a bunch of thought police were recently offended by the fact that men in business school are attracted to attractive women. Awareness must be raised!

Really, these people are just offended by reality.

What motivates someone to spend hours looking for stuff that offends them?

20 Responses to Volunteer thought police

  1. josh says:

    The thought people are obviously paid agents of the state properly defined. In the bad old days the hangers on of a political machine formed groups and thugged on behalf of the party in an unofficial capacity so that their leadership might be recognized as “the local”, entitling them to some small share of patronage spoils and the false hope of advancement. Same as it ever was.

  2. Lawful Neutral says:

    I don’t think it is the same thing at all, josh. Most of these people in it for personal gain or the hope of personal gain. I know these people, and they truly believe they’re doing the right thing. The only payoff they want is a feeling of righteousness, and they get it. I’ve been friends with them, I’ve hung out in their circles, and I’ve even dated them, and I’ve never once heard any expectation of a material reward.

    Wouldn’t you jump at the chance to rescue a drowning person or stop a child abuser? Our volunteer Stasi feel the same way about rooting out racists, sexists, homophobes, and right-wing extremists.

    • josh says:

      When I taught at a 95+% NAM school, I used to get the students to talk to me about their gang affiliations. These were 17-19 year olds who had “jobs” with their various gangs and at some level knew that the gang was a money making enterprise. The weird thing is that nobody ever thought that was its primary purpose. Also, story was always that their set came about to protect their neighborhood from other more vicious gangs. Each student believed their gang was fundamentally about protecting the weak. I would always ask, “Do you sell drugs?”, “Do you have turf”, “What would you do if members of another gang were selling drugs on your turf”. It was always yes, yes, and some serious violence.

      My point is, people can be self-rightous about anything, but would they be their if it wasn’t for the drug money and the power that comes with being affiliated?

      By the way, gang sets are a very good analogy to the historical party system. The sets form independently and try to get recognized by larger gangs which entitles them to supply of drugs and protection. The lowest members of the set, are barely affiliated and have to prove their loyalty for practically no gain. These are the kids who show the most outward signs of loving the thug life and talk the most about how their gang is really a family. This is how hangers on always are.

      same as it ever was.

    • Bill says:

      I’ve been friends with them, I’ve hung out in their circles, and I’ve even dated them,

      Eeeewww. How did you wash the cooties off?

  3. Lawful Neutral says:

    Oops, I meant “most of these people AREN’T in it for personal gain.”

  4. anonymous says:

    I think Josh is right. Most of the people who have time to do this are “working” at cathedral jobs in one way or another.

  5. PA says:

    “What motivates someone to spend hours looking for stuff that offends them?”

    We tend to see leftism as a destructive juggernaut. THEY tend to see it as a project where something gets built. Wanting to contribute and leave their mark, however humble, on this project, they seek out low-hanging fruit type of opportunities to contribute by surfing the net for thought-criminals.

  6. Alrenous says:

    At one level, they want people to be rewarded with e.g. attention for internal character traits, not accidents of genetics and so forth. Unfair is wrong…and they’ve decided reality is fundamentally morally good, and therefore being attracted to attractive people must be an evil that someone has perpetrated on the world. The businessmen are that way because they’re sexist, and they’re sexist because they were raised to be sexist. With help, they can be healed back to their noble savage ways from which they’ve strayed. “Offended by reality” is a good summary here if you remember their fundamental mistaken impression of reality.

    At another level, it’s seen as an opportunity to signal, have impact, and it’s also about the misnamed white guilt stemming from noblesse oblige.

    If they didn’t at least try to right this wrong, they would be responsible for it.

    The democratic myth is in part that your vote counts, as does your voice. They think their actions might actually change it, and feel an anticipatory frisson of power.

    At least, they can tell everyone around the watercooler or at the bar how very noble and self-sacrificing they are, and therefore they deserve to be given some unfairly-rich* person’s stuff. They pretend to themselves that this outcome is plausible.

    *(E.g. everyone richer than they are, except Obama.)

    This theory predicts that most such volunteers will be white, or IWSBs, or otherwise Brahmin. There will be some residual lower-caste followers, using sheer mimicry.

    I think that’s most of the greed or grasping-themed motivations. There’s also fear and flinching.

    “Did you see that article?”
    “Oh yeah, that’s just terrible.”
    “Err…what article?” <— gauche.
    So you get a competition to be offended by things before everyone else, so you don't get left out.
    In a scholarly setting it would be fine to have read it by tomorrow, but around watercoolers, everyone is being offended by the next thing tomorrow, it's too late. Or talking about TV.

    So, fifth level, greed again, is about tribal cohesion. When a tribe is united by hatred of something, it needs a steady supply of the hated thing or it falls apart. The worker ants roam, looking for morsels of hatred, and bring them back to the colony to share. At the individual level, it is a competition to see who can hate most precisely; who can find the perfect foil as per the strictures of the tribal norms. In this case, the ant IFF-pheromone is the carried food itself.

    What I'm trying to say is there's many forces added together and not cancelling out. In any case, it successfully retrodicts that demobrats need a neutered opposition. Without someone to hate, they would perish. Were the republicants to fail, they would need to be reinvented.

    Ironically, re: noble savage, ye ancient tribes were a lot more egalitarian, but it was due to lack of opportunity, not lack of civilization.

    Google thinks Rousseau wasn’t the noble-savage-idea guy. Hilariously. Try it – Rousseau noble savage. Naturally, if you actually click the link and read the first couple relevant sentences, you find that it accurately describes Rousseau’s ideas, and google / la wik is just piously pretending it doesn’t because he didn’t use those exact words.

    • Bill says:

      Great stuff. Also, it’s important not to project a rational actor model too literally onto people. It is very hard for a non-sociopath to be a deranged leftist at work and then “turn it off” as soon as quittin’ time comes.

      I have always been taciturn, especially at work. However, I have become markedly more so since turning to the far right. It is hard to police your speech so completely that your basic worldview never leaks out.

      So, the causation goes both ways. They spend a lot of time signalling that they have a “virtuous” worldview—and, at first, this is done for crass reasons of status and money. This is hard to maintain if you don’t, in fact, have a virtuous world-view. So, they get a virtuous worldview to minimize psychic costs, and this affects their behavior even in contexts where there is no direct benefit to the signalling.

      Cognitive dissonance is painful. It gets extinguished, just not necessarily in the way which seems rational. Sort of like Nietzsche said:

      “I have done that,” says my memory. “I cannot have done that” — says my pride, and remains adamant. At last — memory yields.

      • Alrenous says:

        Thanks, and must agree. I’ll add that the cognitive dissonance splits the brain – there’s the part that has to get you home alive, which doesn’t take the bait, and the part that holds forth at parties and can tell you about itself, which is wholly consumed.

  7. asdf says:

    What exactly are we doing if not bitching about things on the internet. Its the same thing, we just feel we are right and they are wrong (as I’m sure they feel).

    • asdf says:

      BTW, do not take that as equivilaincy. Everyone thinks they are right. That doesn’t mean nobody is. If you both show your cards somebody is going to have the better hand.

  8. Jehu says:

    I’ll tell you what motivates a lot of these Voxian Gammas.
    The mistaken impression that if they suck up to the Cathedral, especially the feminist league, that perversion of honest nunnery, that they’ll enjoy higher status and get laid more often or with a less obese variety of women.

    This is why, IMO, it is important for Reaction to be in the forefront of spreading a less wrong perspective on male-female relationships than the presently politically correct platitudes. G-Damned Cathedral doesn’t even get its f*** collaborators laid on a regular basis. The Nazis with their spiffy uniforms, and probably even the Soviets enjoyed far more success on that front. Partially choking off the flow of gammas is an important objective.

    Just ask the gammas—hey, is all that talking down other men really working for you? Are you getting laid like tile? Underneath most gammas is a massive core of resentment.

  9. […] r/TheBlue Bill, in which an endless parade of feminists, manginas, and assorted members of the volunteer thought police revealed their long histories with a never-ending schedule of […]

  10. Nergal says:

    What motivates them to do it? Cognitive dissonance. They’ve got a bug up their asses because liberalism is self-contradictory in many of its aspects. This makes them irritable. They have to take the irritation out on somebody. It used to be the cops and the government, but they know that they run all that shit now, so they go around looking for racistsexistfascisthomophobicneoconfederatenaziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews to bully instead. Anyone will do,even low-level leftists who aren’t running anything or providing protection other than serving as just one more bootlicker in an army of millions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: