[klagermkii]

This seems to just be a set of general steps for the dominant culture to downplay dissenters or individuals for whom the system isn't working. It doesn't tell you anything about if the system is actually working or not, or if those individuals are right or wrong. Anyone who disagrees with the system will probably go through similar feelings (maybe not point 4).

You could put yourself in the position of someone who grew up poor and disillusioned as part of a visible minority in a US city, or a Hong Kong protestor, or almost any other anti-hedgemony protestor and they'd check the first three boxes. Are they wrong or is the system wrong? Nothing in this list helps determine that.

[Reelin]

I think you misascribe the intent here; in medicine, symptoms and circumstances are correlative (and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with that). For example, chest pain correlates with heart attacks but many other causes exist as well and not everyone will display the same symptoms.

The list above is merely a set of correlations. It may be useful to consider, but must be interpreted appropriately in a given context.

[charwalker]

It would allow a count to ten style consideration of personal bias to better frame the news. Down side is if you check #4 it's unlikely you can be reasoned back to reality.

[throwlaplace]

Astute observation. 1 and 2 apply to marginalized communities but 3 and 4 do not.

[klagermkii]

I think you see point 3 come through in the discussions talking about privilege and lived experience.

It's a natural step after point 1 or 2 where the dominant group rebuts with "well it works for me, so it should work for you", and the minority group provides their theories as to what results in them having a different outcome.

[throwlaplace]

>I think you see point 3 come through in the discussions talking about privilege and lived experience.

That's not the kind secret information preppers and conspiracy theorists lay claim to