Horizontal totalitarianism in life and literature

A timely article. It would be interesting to survey and catalogue the tools and techniques of modern horizontal totalitarianism in digital societies. For example, HN's anonymous downvote mechanism is one such tool.

"It's not "totalitarianism" if people get tired of your whatever-ism. It's basic human nature."

These two things do not contradict each other. Given how often do ideologically controlled societies emerge throughout history, I would argue that basic human nature contains some seeds of totalitarian thought: "Shut up the heretic, or better kill him."

"be happy that people tell you to shut up/stop inviting you to parties/block you on Twitter."

That is not what the author had in mind (probably). The consequences such as being fired or expelled from a school are what bothers people like him and probably me.

There isn't a clean 1-0 spectrum of "being told to shut up o Twitter" and "being thrown in prison". Consequences such as being fired from your job are somewhere in the middle, not totally devastating, but still causing a pretty strong chilling effect. This is a pretty serious punishment that should be used sparingly, not over a stupid Tweet.

I am almost certain that over next 10-20 years, current willingness of bosses or directors to act on Twitter mobbing will be seen akin to other hysterias of the past.

> Ah. Rodriguez resents progressive movements that seek to upend the current social hierarchy (presumably because Rodriguez enjoys exerting social control far more than experiencing it) and has coined this new jargon to associate movements he dislikes with a reviled term (totalitarianism) > > Rodriguez begins with an intellectual lie, then uses it to advance the idea that anti-racist and anti-misogynist movements are the actual oppressors. And not the misogynists and racists themselves.

What evidence is there that progressive movements are actually seeking to upend anything? Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century, and have this been influential in the rest of the West.

As far as I can tell, progressive movements like BLM and MeToo are absolutely attempting to preserve the existing order. After all, these movements and groups are well-funded by the very people you suggest they are trying to take down. These movements and groups (and you?) appear to cheer 1% of the population holding 99% of the wealth as long as that 1% is 50% female, 14% black, 5% percent LGBT or whatever, etc.

The intellectual lie you begin with is that progressives don't already have a complete monopoly over the relevant cultural power.

EDIT:

> Insanely, Rodriguez points to...

Also, if I were you, I might be cautious about using the I-word. It's already banned from being in any commits at Google.

> Seems to me they've been culturally dominant in America (i.e. they control the schools, the media, entertainment, government bureaucracy and now Big Tech) for over a century

Explain to me how BLM controlled America in the 1920s.

Reads to me as a set polemical straw arguments against communalism and horizontalism; broad brush strokes (based on fiction) that belie the dynamic, empowering and pluralistic natures possible within so-called horizontal organisational dynamics. Like those who would paint social forms of "anarchism" as being without rules, a black and white conflation of a nuanced topic relating to social/progressive politics with a concept like totalitarianism. Not that there aren't dark pattern social dynamics relating to the topic that are worth talking about, but there really is no attempt to engage here, just an apparent horseshoe attempt to psychologically pin negative sentiments to some keywords.