Pseudocontrarianism - Taking a stand in favor of the dominant cultural regime while acting as if you're the minority view

[Penis Drager]

We've all seen, and mocked, it: the "I support current thing" meme made manifest. Those who profess they are "fighting the power" with the support of the eminent power structure are nothing new or rare.
Let's have a formal discussion about it:

There's many angles to approach the subject from, but I'll start with it as one of the regime's defense mechanisms. When faced with backlash, it's an effective strategy to frame the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in a way that mobilizes the masses in lashing out against dissent. To "recoil in pain as they strike you" is how you can justify acts of suppression as self defense. It really is self defense in a sense. It's the regime defending itself from attacks from those who actively want to destroy it.
I'm not even talking about some sort of cabal of people trying to manipulate the masses to do their bidding (that may or may not be a thing but it's not super relevant here). Group psychology works differently from that of the individual. Ideologies gain a sort of sentience when like minded people get together. The regime is sort of a non-corporeal entity like a corporation. There may be certain centralized mouthpieces, leaders, etc. But they're really just speaking and acting on behalf of this... thing.

As I said: There's other ways to go about discussing this and my starting point might not be the best. But it's a fascinating phenomenon nonetheless and I'd like to impotently bicker about it.

 

[Kenya Jones]

Huh?

 

[Penis Drager]

Huh?

I guess it's schizoposting that takes two parts:

• Let's talk about how people act like they're saying something controversial when what they're saying is supported by the dominant culture.
• One reason for this is that "cultures" effectively have minds of their own and people often find themselves acting as parts of the hive defending the dominant culture rather than thinking individuals themselves.

Also I just feel like sperging.

 

[Fascist Frederick]

Examples would be great.

 

[Sprate Header]

Examples would be great.

"We fight the power by participating in riots funded by Fortune 500 companies" or whatever

 

[Socrates]

Those who profess they are "fighting the power" with the support of the eminent power structure are nothing new or rare.

It's just a quirk of false consciousness. The American academic and media systems have spent the last few decades filling people with a sort of "dummy ideology" that feels like it has revolutionary spirit but doesn't. This dummy ideology can be manipulated on a dime through coded media and social pressure. I've taken to calling it "Disneyification of the mind" Your ideals don't need to be logically consistent because you never actually critically engage with them, you simply parrot the chosen cultural gatekeepers. Equally affects Republicans and Democrats, D's are just much more loud and obnoxious with it, and run Hollywood.

 

[Penis Drager]

Examples would be great.

I deliberately avoided specific examples specifically because I wanted this to be an open ended discussion. And my own biases could very well get in the way of what, exactly, is "the dominant cultural regime" (see: hostile media effect).
Anything from your stance on transgenders to race relations to the scope of government to fucking pitbulls may or may not fit in here. And obviously it depends on the Overton window of the subculture you happen to find yourself in.
Even petty stuff like "surprising facts" about how Hitler was totally Jewish and Einstein was a bad student, which all sound counter-intuitive but tons of people just believe it preciecely because it's "surprising" can fit in here as well.
People like to think their stance is somehow "against the grain" when they're really just falling in line with the group.

 

[Skitarii]

Switching the role of the aggressor and the reciever is a common gaslighting strategy. Globohomo has been gaslighting people for years, what's new?

 

[El Goblina]

Switching the role of the aggressor and the reciever is a common gaslighting strategy. Globohomo has been gaslighting people for years, what's new?

Yes, often referred to as "DARVO". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

 

[Penis Drager]

The American academic and media systems have spent the last few decades filling people with a sort of "dummy ideology" that feels like it has revolutionary spirit but doesn't. This dummy ideology can be manipulated on a dime through coded media and social pressure.

Hence why I described it as a defense mechanism of the dominant cultural regime as if it were a sentient being. Assuming there is no concerted "effort," the regime is like a person caught doing something bad. If he's not mature enough to accept that he's been wrong and change his ways, the line typically goes as follows:

1. I didn't do it.
2. I did, but it's not that bad.
3. It is that bad, but it's not my fault.
4. It is my fault, and it's good.

And given we're talking about a collective here, you can find many people within "the hive" at any of the 4 stages at once.

 

[Skitarii]

Hence why I described it as a defense mechanism of the dominant cultural regime as if it were a sentient being. Assuming there is no concerted "effort," the regime is like a person caught doing something bad. If he's not mature enough to accept that he's been wrong and change his ways, the line typically goes as follows:

1. I didn't do it.
2. I did, but it's not that bad.
3. It is that bad, but it's not my fault.
4. It is my fault, and it's good.

And given we're talking about a collective here, you can find many people within "the hive" at any of the 4 stages at once.

1. Holohoax not real
2. Holohoax real but it was only 6000
3. Holocaust was 6 gorillion, but jews were worse
4. Holocaust good

 

[LarpBait]

Your schizoposting is well founded, but the OP is messy and makes you sound more schizo than you seem.
This phenomenon has existed for awhile. Kaczynski wrote about it in this letter:

The System’s Neatest Trick

Ted Kaczynski The System’s Neatest Trick

theanarchistlibrary.org

To further expand with my personal thoughts: the idea of the liberal "rebel" is easily seen in the culture of "constant revolution" that exists in the more academic, or if you're autistic, Cathedralite parts, of Western culture. There's a tendency for those types of people to tear norms down, especially norms that are in some way authoritative of human behavior, so the aesthetic of a revolutionary fits quite well to their ideology. Of course, they're not revolutionaries by any mean, their revolution is aided and reinforced by a massive system of power that happens to benefit from them being play-pretend revolutionaries. The aesthetic still fits despite this, so they can call themselves revolutionary while still being tethered to a massive system of oppression, even if it's inconsistent.

 

[Colon capital V]

I guess it's schizoposting that takes two parts:

• Let's talk about how people act like they're saying something controversial when what they're saying is supported by the dominant culture.
• One reason for this is that "cultures" effectively have minds of their own and people often find themselves acting as parts of the hive defending the dominant culture rather than thinking individuals themselves.

Also I just feel like sperging.

So basically r/unpopularopinion?

 

[Ultrapenguin]

I was going to write something a bit longer, but it sort of sounds like you're just describing the concept of "coping" and tribalism.

When a person is impotent and reliant on the support of the herd to survive or advance, they can't afford to be socially rejected. Therefore in order to reinforce collectivist sentiments moral objectivism develops to allow a simple way to codify us vs. them; we are good and the things we do are good and valuable, they are bad and the things they do are bad and valueless.

And that isn't just a "liberal" thing (not that partisan political labels mean anything anymore), it's a collectivist thing. It's no different than why the white supremacists tend to be useless degenerate retards; "Hey, hey buddy, you and I, we're white, we should stick together! We should help each other out even though I can't help you in any way since I suck, but we're both white, and we're being attacked! Are you scared? Are you insecure? Then come join us and surrender to the collective!"

Moral objectivism exists as a mechanism to reinforce collectivism and allow dissent to be recognized and punished more easily, so yes, it's a tool of the status quo.

 

[Socrates]

In conclusion, playas gon play, bitches ain't shit but hoes n tricks, and the indus'rial revolushun n its shit got niggas mad fucked up. Peace.

 

[Ser Prize]

It's just a quirk of false consciousness. The American academic and media systems have spent the last few decades filling people with a sort of "dummy ideology" that feels like it has revolutionary spirit but doesn't. This dummy ideology can be manipulated on a dime through coded media and social pressure. I've taken to calling it "Disneyification of the mind" Your ideals don't need to be logically consistent because you never actually critically engage with them, you simply parrot the chosen cultural gatekeepers. Equally affects Republicans and Democrats, D's are just much more loud and obnoxious with it, and run Hollywood.

It's programming. They're programmed from near-birth to respond to certain phrases, words and cues in such a way that their rational mind shuts down and the programming takes over. The 'rational mind' part itself might be debatable with that in mind.

 

[Jewthulhu]

Let's talk about how people act like they're saying something controversial when what they're saying is supported by the dominant culture.

One of the explanations I've heard about that is that in reality neither "side" is actually in power. The actual "center of political power" exists somewhere to the center-left. So while the right and especially the far right are legitimately out of power, the left and far left in a sense are out of power too. This theory then goes on to say as the left exists closer to the eminent power, it is better able to exploit gaps in power and pull society slowly leftwards (it also has to due with the nature of the left and "right" but that's a bit tl;dr). So in other words, both the left and the right are legitimately "fighting the power," but the left has an advantage over the right that allows it to ultimately control the movement of society.

Not sure if I entirely believe this but it's an interesting idea, and I at least used to think along these lines.

One reason for this is that "cultures" effectively have minds of their own and people often find themselves acting as parts of the hive defending the dominant culture rather than thinking individuals themselves.

I don't think people fall into the "dominant" culture simply because it's "dominant" (whether locally or nationally dominant). That is to say, the "dominance" of a political culture certainly is a sociological point in its favor, but cultural "selection" is influenced by a large number of factors outside of simply sociological pervasiveness.

In the same vein, I don't think it's cause by any sort of social programming either, which is basically an artificial sociological dominance (where primary social spaces are dominated rather than the entire culture as a whole). Again, it's a point in the "dominant" culture's favor, but not the entire story. The most simple rebuttal is the question: "Why was I immune to this?" or "why are there people who embrace a political culture different than they were raised in/surrounded by?"

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

1. Holohoax not real
2. Holohoax real but it was only 6000
3. Holocaust was 6 gorillion, but jews were worse
4. Holocaust good

"Holocaust never happened but it should have"

 

[Skitarii]

"Holocaust never happened but it should have"

"6 million was not enough"

 

[gang weeder]

It's human nature for people to portray themselves as victims when they feel threatened, regardless of the reality. This was one of the drawbacks of Blumpft winning in 2016, it gave the regime a veneer of actually being out of power (because Orange Man was in the White House) despite still actually holding power in most if not all the ways that matter.