Posted on 12/17/2023 6:29:59 PM PST by TBP
The term “kafkatrapping” describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.
The term derives from Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which a nondescript bank clerk named Josef K. is arrested; no charges are ever revealed to the character or to the reader. Josef is prosecuted by a bizarre and tyrannical court of unknown authority and he is doomed by impenetrable red tape. In the end, Josef is abducted by two strange men and inexplicably executed by being stabbed through the heart. The Trial is Kafka’s comment on totalitarian governments, like the Soviet Union, in which justice is twisted into a bitter, horrifying parody of itself and serves only those in charge.
Kafkatrapping twists reason and truth into self-parodies that serve victimhood ideologues who wish to avoid the evidence and reasoned arguments upon which truth rests. The term appears to have originated in a 2010 article written by author and open source software advocate Eric S. Raymond. He opens by acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect. But, he notes, “[g]ood causes sometimes have bad consequences.” One such consequence is that tactics used to raise consciousness can veer “into the creepy and pathological, borrowing the least sane features of religious evangelism.”
Raymond offers various models of how kafkatrapping operates. He calls the two most common ones A and C.
Model A: The accuser states, “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of (sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…) confirms that you are guilty of (sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…).” Harking back to The Trial, Raymond explains how the novel’s plot parallels the structure and purpose of the accuser’s nonargument. No specific acts are named in the accusation, which makes the claim unfalsifiable. The vague charge constitutes a thought crime, which also makes it unfalsifiable. As with The Trial, the process seems designed to create guilt and to destroy resistance so that you become malleable. Indeed, “the only way out … is … to acquiesce in his own destruction.” Even if you are innocent, the only path to redemption is for you to plead guilty and accept punishment. Ideally, for the accuser, you even come to believe in your own guilt.
Model C is a common variant on the same theme. You may not have done, felt or thought anything wrong but you are still guilty because you benefit from a position of privilege created by others. In other words, you are guilty because of your identification with a group such as “male,” “white,” or “heterosexual.” The accusation makes you responsible for the actions of strangers whose behavior you cannot control and who may have died long ago. Raymond writes, “The aim … is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt … a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator [accuser] to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals.” To be redeemed, you must cease to disagree with your accuser and condemn your entire identity group.
What happens when an accuser confronts someone in the same identity group to which he or she belongs? For example, one woman may question aspects of politically correct feminism being presented by another. An entirely different phenomenon occurs. Obviously, the questioner will not be encouraged to condemn herself for being a woman or to excoriate all women. Instead, she will be defined out of the group.
This is called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It occurs when someone is confronted with an example that disproves a universal claim. The British philosopher Antony Flew described the fallacy, which he also named. One day Hamish McDonald reads an article in the Glasgow Morning Herald which reports on an attack by a sex maniac in England. Hamish declares aloud, “No Scotsman would do such a thing!” The next day, the Glasgow Morning Herald reports on an even worse attack in Scotland. Rather than reject his original statement, Hamish exclaims, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.” Thus, conservative women like Sarah Palin are not true woman; blacks who question the validity of ‘white privilege’ cease to be viewed as truly black.
Other techniques are often associated with kafkatrapping. (Note: For a tactic to be true kafkatrapping, it has to involve an unfalsifiable claim.) Associated techniques that prove your guilt could include:
Requesting a clear-cut definition of what you are charged with – for example, homophobia; Pointing out an injustice committed by the accuser’s identity group; Applying a single standard to everyone, e.g., refusing to accept that blacks cannot be racist; Expressing skepticism about any aspect of the victimhood ideology, including the plausibility of anecdotal evidence; Being ignorant of or uninterested in the subject; Arguing against the ideology; Saying “some of my best friends are X.” Kafkatrapping would seem to be a win-win situation for an accuser. And, in the short term, this may be true but its long-term impact can be devastating.
A movement becomes widespread because its voice is truth – at least, largely so – and its demand for justice is valid: For example, homosexuals have been hideously abused through much of history. When a movement discards the truth and justice that made it grow and favors abusive attacks instead, it is in decline. The abuse also quashes any productive discussion of real issues. Raymond observes, “[m]anipulative ways of controlling people tend to hollow out the causes for which they are employed, smothering whatever worthy goals they may have begun with and reducing them to vehicles for the attainment of power and privilege over others.”
A separate problem arises if the accuser honestly believes the kafkatrapping. A woman who believes all men are oppressors is unlikely to cooperate with them in a good will attempt to solve social problems. She is more likely to seek a position of dominance over men, which she justifies in the name of self-defense or as a payback that is her due. This heightens tension between the sexes and obstructs sincere attempts to resolve problems. A kafkatrapper true believer becomes increasingly isolated from people who are seen as “the enemy” because they disagree; the true believer becomes increasingly unable to even communicate with or have empathy for a broad spectrum of people. The kafkatrapper ‘wins’ the argument but loses a shared humanity.
My Plan B Blueprint to Become Anti-fragile
The US and US dollar are clearly deteriorating. And there is a lot of danger in having too much exposure to a crumbling empire.
That is why I have a Plan B, which has allowed me to:
Cut my tax rate to 4% Use that savings to invest in real assets, precious metals, and crypto Gain a second residency and apply for a second passport Diversify internationally And much more.
A Plan B gives you the tools to respond to whatever the world throws at you from a position of strength.
"Need to import immigrants" has always been a dangerous claim. Look at what the Biden gang is doing. "Immigrant" inflation is at Weimar levels.
I read 'The Trial'. It is actually a metaphor about judgement before God. The book even has a chapter where someone stands in a door to the God's and never even given a peek inside his whole life.
The only effective reponse:
"I am shocked... shocked! that you would level such an accusation at me! You yourself are obviously motivated by ingrained racism. And don't you try to deny it! A hateful racist like yourself would say anything at this point to try to wriggle out of it!
Regards,
Bkmk
There actually weren't all that many "immigrants" (legal or illegal) entering Germany during the period of the Weimar Republic.
Regards,
bkmk
i say that regularly now at just about every drive thru I pull up to. straining quite hard to understand the gibberish coming thru the speaker!!
You miss the point. The currrent skyrocketing number of illegal entries into the US is inflating like the Weimar currency inflation.
I’ve learned the only response to this is a two word anglosaxonism. There’s a hand gesture appropriately accompanying this.
BTW, in “the trial” only the first and last chapter need to in that order, all other chapters can be read in any order. Kafka did this purposely so as to magnify the absurdity of the story.
Kafkatrapping twists reason and truth.
Didn’t know the democrat party and MSM used the same code name.
And where did those nasty Catholics get that crazy idea?
Oh, yeah: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".
“...false witness...”
Contumely is different. More monstrous than mere falsity.
See #30 please.
It isn't just the vague accusations of "racism" or "whateverphobia".
Always referring to an "opponent" or "rival", in public speeches and public writing, by a disparaging "nickname" is definitely a form of "contumely". Thank you for putting a name to something I instinctively saw as wrong.
Ha! (laughing) Yes, the title is Metamorphosis. The critter he is transformed into is often translated as “cockroach” although it’s actually rather vague in the German. Anyway, I haven’t read it in decades. All that Existentialist stuff I had to read back then was so depressing and weird, I never want to revisit it. Anyway, I always thought of it as “The Cockroach” and have the same aversion to Existentialist Lit as to those nasty bugs lol.
It gets a ton worse than nicknames between public figures. Raging hostility by non-public actors at non-public individuals, impeccable timing to maximize damage..it seems at times, if you’ve seen it in person, only the intelligence of Satan and his minions can orchestrate this kind of brutal misbehavior.
Certainly. I've seen it, and it's horrible. (See also a lot of corporate "harassment training", which generally portrays a particular group as the perpetrator but never the victim.) It's also encouraged by misconduct at the highest levels. The incessant use of contemptuous, pejorative "nicknames" by public figures encourages similar bad behavior among the general public. It sets a bad example. I used to do that, I now strive to turn away from it, even as regards people I find to be truly loathsome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.