Following the furore created by my post yesterday, I want to point out something which is hilarious, scary and quite amazing, all at the same time.
In the late Soviet Union one way to deal with dissidents/opponents of the Communist rule was to declare them insane, usually with what they called “slowly evolving/latent schizophrenia” (вялотекущая шизофрения). Now, truth be told, quite a few of those dissidents did have weird personalities and even after the fall of the USSR they clearly struggled with mental issues. But that is not the point here.
My point is that if you read through the comments section yesterday you will find quite a few comments which “diagnose” me with all sorts of motives and explain away my latest crimethink by referring my mental state. Such comments range from the outright hostile to, even better, “compassionate concern” :-)
Of course, as I did reply several times, if person X makes argument Y, then discussing person X is a way not to discuss argument Y. In other words, it is a surefire sign of lack of solid arguments.
But what I want to point out here is even more important: by choosing to do away with my arguments by making it all about me and my mental state, these folks are acting exactly like the Soviets did with those who dared to disagree with the Party dogma.
Since I am making comparisons, I would also add that those who wish that I would pack and leave remind me very much of those in the Soviet Kremlin who liked to send those daring to criticize them far away to Siberia. The early Soviets also like to expel dissenting intellectuals and send them into exile.
Think of the irony of this: red blooded flag waving anti-Communist US patriots deal with my personal dissent and crimethink in the same way as the Soviet gerontocrats would have.
How about the irony of going to Vietnam to fight the Commies only to come back home and fight the dissidents just like the Commies would :-)
Makes me wonder if the First Amendment was part of whatever value they were defending in their military expeditions thousands of miles away from home.
How about “real ideological diversity”? Is that good or bad?
Or is it that the “cancel culture” approach is now also endorsed by “patriotic Americans”?
I will end with a rhetorical question: is this manner of dealing with dissent and crimethink a manifestation of the famous “western values”?