The Four Quadrants of Conformism

Wait---are you seriously not going to count the people the police have killed? What is wrong with you?

Regardless, my point was not that the protests are justified (although of course they are: for someone who claims to work in "police reform" all you have been doing is defending the police and demonising protestors), but that to not identify the militarised police force brutalising protestors as a more important sign of authoritarianism than "cancel culture" is ridiculous.

That's why I mentioned the protests were started by a murder. Because when you claim cancel culture is this huge problem, and mention a Harvard professor not having one of his duties renewed, I think it's relevant to show how grotesquely out of proportion it is with the George Floyd protests.

> You keep asserting this. You don't show evidence for this.

I'm sorry: in what capacity have you been "working for police reform"? I'm really getting the feeling that that is an extremely inaccurate description of your job.

I haven't shown evidence for the police brutality in the US because I assumed you were aware of it. Are you not? Do you not understand that police officers murdering peaceful protestors is an authoritarian crisis?

> If you're interested in solving problems instead of stirring up anger then your interest should be in understanding the problem and not polarizing sides.

All of the "solutions" for how to stop police violence which come from American police amount to (surprisingly) giving the police more money. Kind of like how all of the "solutions" to gun violence involve giving more people guns (teachers, cops, etc.)

The way to curb police violence is to defund and demilitarise the police. This is what has worked in places outside of the US, and this is the only realistic approach.

> 1. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-higher-educa.... > > 2. https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/07/how-education-impacts-pol....

This is not evidence for the claim that defunding the police causes a spike in crime.

> That has nothing to do with this topic.

Mass imprisonment is absolutely relevant to the question of the authoritarian nature of the police.

> Violence is not something to be proud of.

You can't think of a single instance of violent protest that you'd be proud of?

> You talk so much against authoritarianism, but violence is the fundamental tool of it.

It's difficult to take you seriously on the issue of police violence when you have yet to even acknowledge the horrific and obvious police brutality during the protests.

With how he defines conformity and nonconformity one could argue that the flatearther surrounded by non flatearthers could be a nonconformist. I would argue it's not conformity or lack there of that leads to effectiveness, but instead an indifference to conforming leading to a pursuit of the truth regardless of if it is mainstream or not. So I would say his quadrant system does not define the independent minded person he talks about later in the article.

I think he is in the right ballpark when it comes to pointing to the clear eyed visionary who is willing to look past the orthodox of those around them. But I think his formulation of such an idea is reductionistic. People I would view as conformist have their own worldviews and often pride themselves as nonconformists. Worldviews are a complicated thing and if we write off the majority of people as "sheep" or just part of the problem we become part of a contempt culture that can be really toxic.

No. Wearing masks when common sense says you ought to, in the current situation, is independent-minded, not conformist. (For example, consider: the same person would have been wearing a mask before any guidance or rules were issued about it at all, since it took quite a while for such guidance and rules to catch up with the actual situation. A Bottom Left person would have been waiting for some guidance or rules to be issued. A Top Left person would have been calling out the mask wearer for overreacting, after all, things can't possibly be that bad if no guidance or rules have been issued requiring people to wear masks, right?)

> I think you are leaving out the people who reject masks at every opportunity.

Strictly speaking, yes, those could also count as Top Right, but I wanted to emphasize the fact that Top Right does not require stupidity.

I suppose re: your social media point (I have long ago soured on most of it personally) that, rather than ridding away and decrying the negatives with tech and social media as a result of progress, really what needs to happen is social media needs its own set of reforms in order to have its “supposed vision” be actualized.

The route of addicting users for increased “engagement” while optimizing for nothing else has successfully poisoned the well of good intentions (and possibilities). But still, and this relates to the heart of the essay itself: I believe the path to solve this is by moving forward, making the systems better (or providing new ones). Rather than rejecting them outright. But maybe that is the raging optimist in me talking.