[norea-armozel]

No group literally starts that way, but their behaviors exhibit as such and oftener there is a reason why terms like Oppression Olympics exist in the social media lexicon. It's not out of humor but that there's a core truth to it.

For example, there's a segment of gender critical feminists that believe that transgender activists are uniformly assaulting them on all fronts when in reality transgender activists have been focused on issues of non-discrimination in law (public accommodation, employment, and healthcare as big issues where activists seek redress). Neither side assumes one is special or better/worse than the other but both attempt grand standing on who is more oppressed/harmed by society. And how unique their position is in terms of said oppression. I've rarely seen either side (being trans myself here) extend a hand in regards to trying to understand the other. It seems the most vocal members of this fracas are doomed to bury each other in terrible memes and virtual shouting matches. Some have gone further like Cathy Brennan who has doxxed a transgender teenager (who had no quarrel with her or other gender critical feminists) for the Pacific Justice Institute (a right wing think tank out of California). So, I hope you can see where I'm coming from here.

[minority-one]

Let's put together a bunch of what you said, because you are indeed so close to guessing, and I don't doubt you can, as a fellow anarchist.

Behavior patterns of Group X (that is then passed on to other groups):

- being a special and isolated group from the rest of human kind

- having suffered uniquely

- having unique significance

- pulling the special-group card all the time (say, to stifle criticism)

- believing other groups are assaulting them on all fronts (say, like a paranoia towards an outgroup)

- attempting grand standing on their being the most oppressed by society (say, by discussing on a TV show whether their suffering was the most awful of all)

- never admitting they are wrong on something (say, in History, where if you disagree with their version, it can only be because you might hate them)

I gave you many hints but as you can tell, the hints come from your posts. You are so spot on. But now you must guess, who is Group X who is influencing other groups to adopt this same behavior?

[norea-armozel]

You seem to be playing the role of an obscurer. I'm going to suggest that if you want people to actually engage you that you engage them. Playing this sort of pseudo-socratic inquiry isn't going to get your point across. If you can't make it in less than a paragraph then don't attempt to make the point.

[Nadya]

It's a /pol/ troll by the looks of it. They're referencing Jews. Just ignore them.

[minority-one]

I take issue with your accusing me of trolling on the other comment. I am being playful but I am not trolling. What I am talking about is a concerted effort that began with Psychoanalysis in the beginning of the 20th century and moved on to the Frankfurt School and then the New York Intellectuals and now takes the form of Cultural Marxism. I recommend that you look up these keywords to learn more about the behaviors you have rightfully noticed. If you're interested in information with scholarly citations about this subject I recommend The Culture of Critique, it's a book that will open your eyes. I'd be willing to send you the book for free if you don't want to pay for it. That's because when I find people that seem to be on to the truth (like you), I give them a chance to peer deeper into the darkness.

Like I said, I took all the hints from things you said. It's clear you see it too. I understand people are very leery of pointing fingers especially when the conversation involves certain untouchable groups. However, as a trans person I'm sure you have courage in spades to study this subject without prejudice and preconceived notions you might have acquired during education in school.

If you still think I'm a troll, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain to me how better I could approach this subject with you without coming across as a troll. I can do it easily in person, but online it seems to always come across as trollish, I suppose because mentioning Jews is something usually seen done by shady characters with hidden agendas. However, I believe one can talk about Yakuza without indicting all Japanese, or talk about the Mafia without indicting all Italians.

[dang]

I'm afraid your comments do come across as trolling, and repeatedly so. If you're serious about not coming across that way, two things you should do at a minimum are:

(1) not toss drive-by flamebait into the threads, like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10382497 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10376183. Those are low-substance, high-provocation comments that are guaranteed to produce more of the same, only worse—exactly the opposite of what we want on HN.

(2) edit out every trace of snark like "But yes, evil Germans and their eugenics, carry on." That stuff is poison and adds fuel to the fire.

Beyond that: tone down your claims, substantiate them more, and stop using ideological buzzwords.

[minority-one]

Thank you, dang, I appreciate the concrete guidelines. I was actually thinking of emailing you over this.

I promise you I will try to behave as you have proposed here. I think those are fair guidelines. In fact I very much appreciate your laying them down clearly like that. If the "no negativity" policy were as well fleshed-out as you just did here I think it would be more helpful.

I will abide by your rules because I want to keep posting here. But if I abide by the rules and you still detach my threads as off-topic, then it will have been an unfair deal in my opinion.

I'd be curious to know, respectfully, if you chided the user to whom I was replying, since what they said can easily be construed as instigation:

> No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out...

"we all know how that turned out" DOT DOT DOT is instigation and we all know he's rubbing the Holocaust on everyone's faces without spelling it out. To me that is a foul silencing tactic and it needs to be called out on. That is what I attempted to do when I made my "carry on" remark, after having substantially and politely fleshed out the topic in that same reply.

So as you can see, from my end your enforcement sometimes looks biased.

EDIT: In fact I'd like clarification on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10381398

Their post amounts to nothing more than "Intelligence research is actually 150 years old and it ended with the Holocaust".

Now what do you call that? Isn't that snarky flamebait? It looks like it to me. Shouldn't that claim be toned down a little? Shouldn't it be substantiated a little more?

I want to respect you but for that you will have to uphold your vetting standards equally amongst all players.

[norea-armozel]

I'm going to be brutally honest and tell you that you are someone I probably wouldn't talk to in real life because you're eluding that Jews are trying to destroy the world. The fact you try to play up the cultural Marxism argument doesn't stand to reason that well before even the term existed that there were people acting like butt-clowns (like TERFs, New Atheism, and etc) without it.

So, you don't need a Frankfurt School. Just look at the Protestant and Catholic leagues which formed during the Reformation. You don't need to concoct some bogey man to prove people are inherently defensive in groups. We just do it by design like all primates of our kind.

So before you go throwing out silly concepts like cultural Marxism just take a moment to actually observe people with as little bias as you can muster. You'll see the patterns I'm talking about. And it doesn't require additional parameters to verify.

[minority-one]

Again I must take offense at your misconstruing what I said.

If I actually had said that Jews are trying to destroy the world, you'd be able to quote that. In fact I do not think Jews are trying to destroy the world, and this can be easily verified by the fact that most of them are content to live their lives as normal human beings.

Secondly, if I thought Jews were trying to destroy the world, then I would be incredibly paranoid of talking about this subject, seeing that those who do foolishly believe in such an outrageous idea receive quite a bit of unpleasantries.

Instead, I am trying to civilly talk to you about a book I've read and the knowledge it imparted to me, and I'm even offering you to pay for the book and shipping so that you too can glance at this knowledge which you already basically understand half of, and your reply to my offer is to slander me and say you wouldn't talk to me in person. I would never expect this level of intolerance coming from a trans person who I'd assume has experienced first-hand the pangs of ostracism.

Please, listen to me. You are severely downplaying the influence of the schools of thought we have been talking about. I extend my offer once again to pay for the book and shipping if you promise me you will read it.