Has anybody ever heard of Kafkatrapping?

[Exhaustion Magnet]

Original essay here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

In summary: Kafkatrapping is the act of accusing someone of wrongdoing, and if they protest, use their protesting as evidence of guilt. The name comes from Franz Kafka's "The Trial".

That's Model A.

Model C is to accuse that someone of benefiting from an overarching wrongdoing, and as such, they are guilty.

Model P is to accuse a person of having privileges due to some sort of oppression, and as such, that person is guilty.

Model S is that showing any kind of skepticism to a cause means that you are guilty of being a member of the opposing party.

And so on.

I'm mentioning this because I'm a progressive moderate that wants to see some social changes and diversity, but I can't support causes that have no end goal to their campaign, no defined vocabulary; basically causes that seem more like extremist ideological wars rather than rational discussion towards meaningful constructive change.

 

[Batou667]

Interesting. I was familiar with Model A in the context of the "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" rhetorical trick/fallacy, but it's good to attach a more concrete definition to it.

 

[Overhead]

Eh, never seen it and think the argument is poorly made now I have.

It seems to be having a go at people who talk about gender/racial/whatever issues by misrepresenting the arguements people make. The overarching wrongdoing it talks about is defined as (male/white/straight/whatever) privilege and not sexism/racism/whatever as he claims. By changing the definition he changes the implication. Privilege is something which happens on a societal level and where we're not saying the person is guilty of choosing to benefit but rather just pointing out they have benefited due to the system that is in place.

Here's an an example

Before discussing "male privilege" it is first important to define what privilege means in an anti-oppression setting. Privilege, at its core, is the advantages that people benefit from based solely on their social status. It is a status that is conferred by society to certain groups, not seized by individuals, which is why it can be difficult sometimes to see one?s own privilege. [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/]

An example would be someone who grew up in a deprived situation pointing out to a friend who was born into a wealthy family that he was brought up in a situation which offered him a lot of societal advantages. It isn't attaching blame, because how can you blame a kid for how he was brought up? However it is still pointing out a very real inequality which results in differences in outcome, the kind of thing that matters to anyone with an interest in looking at how we do and how we should function as a society.

Realising such an inequality exists can lead someone to take action to stop that inequality in the future, which in the above example could be anything from full on Marxism to maybe just advocating a slightly higher tax rate for the rich.

The constant accusational tone that is given to these imaginary people declaring "guilty" constantly is very confrontational and just makes what are actually pretty obvious and clear cut points seem extreme.

I have no problem with S and would support recognising it is a problem whenever anyone tries to bring up that type of arguement, but the fact that throughout the article the writer only seems to address this problem at quintessentially left-wing concerns (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) shows a bias in my eyes and it seems he is trying to push an agenda. After all he only addresses this argument at "Blacks, women, and other historical out-groups" and doesn't indicate at any point that these are arguments white males could make.

 

[Exhaustion Magnet]

I don't like the modern concept of "privilege", as it's usually just used as a way to shut down discussion. By invoking privilege in discussion, it is an inherent ad hominem that says a person's argument is invalid-- not for any logical, ethical, or moral reasons-- but because they have some sort of inherent property that they are born with. Even better is that you cannot deny having privilege because its definition is that everybody has privilege and the people with privilege conveniently cannot claim otherwise, since you cannot always see your privilege.

Using privilege in discussion is a form of discrimination. When you start talking about privileges, you enter territory where you value the way a person is born above their beliefs and points. The only reason why privilege is "acceptable" in arguments today is that it is solely used against people who are white or male, who are the modern acceptable targets for abuse. Imagine a black man and a white woman are having a debate, and both of them invoke privilege. Who gets to claim the honor of having the least meaningful privilege? How about if we made it a Jew descended from Holocaust survivors having a debate against a descendant of the Cherokee from the Trail of Tears? What about Asian American privilege, how does an Asian measure up against a black for the honor of the smallest privilege?

And that is why white males cannot make privilege claims. Privilege is an inherently racist, sexist, or whatever-ist claim. Since "whites" cannot be discriminated against in society's view-- and neither can males-- they are the only ones who can be targeted by privilege.

 

[Silvanus]

Using privilege in discussion is a form of discrimination. When you start talking about privileges, you enter territory where you value the way a person is born above their beliefs and points. The only reason why privilege is "acceptable" in arguments today is that it is solely used against people who are white or male, who are the modern acceptable targets for abuse.

This is not the case. The intent is to encourage people to recognise the position from which they are speaking; recognising that people have differing experiences is not valuing certain characteristics more than others.

A person's argument should be judged on merit, regardless of who they are. This does not mean that the position they are speaking from has no influence on the insight they have into certain issues.

"Privilege" is not a perfect concept, but most disagreements I've seen are built on fundamental misunderstandings like the above.

 

[briankoontz]

It takes two to tango. Kafka protagonists are psychologically subject to intense guilt in the first place, which makes it easy for a defensive society (one which fears and seeks to eliminate the guilt-ridden individuals) to take advantage of them. Kafka's works are about both the society in which he lived and the psychological underpinnings of individuals within that society.

Privilege, wealth accumulation, slave/master relations, and the like are complex socio-political situations and never boil down to "individual guilt", nor "societal guilt". Outlying monsters like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers are easy to demonize and somewhat rightly so, but they exist within an entire system which allows them to be who they are. Rupert Murdoch is nearing the end of a long life without being assassinated, imprisoned, or even socially ostracized (at least by his own social circle), which says a lot both about the society in which we live and ourselves as individuals. Rupert Murdoch is free to do as he pleases while some occasional marijuana smokers languish in prison.

Democracy is a complex concept which boils down to "the people are obligated to control reality". In other words, there's ultimately noone to blame but human beings themselves for monstrosities like global warming, possible nuclear annihilation, economic domination, mass disease and starvation. EVERYONE is to blame for not solving the world's problems, although people who have more power are more to blame on an individual level.

Consider who can break a chain that links a master to a slave. The master, the slave, friends of either one, some stranger just passing through - literally anyone with the power to do so. The failure to break such a chain is on EVERYONE who had the power to break it but failed or neglected to do so.

Privileged people prefer to avoid hearing about their privilege since in their view of things (preferring to maintain their privilege) nothing good can come from such a discussion. The master doesn't want to talk about master/slave relations, he just wants the slave to keep working and himself to keep receiving the resultant profit.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Well, you know what the local librarian says, "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.".

 

[CaitSeith]

Well, you know what the local librarian says, "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.".

That's pretty much why USA law is based in "innocent until proven guilty". The subjectivity of "degrees of guilt" is good for the philosophical context; but unpractical in the real world.

 

[Exhaustion Magnet]

Privileged people prefer to avoid hearing about their privilege since in their view of things (preferring to maintain their privilege) nothing good can come from such a discussion. The master doesn't want to talk about master/slave relations, he just wants the slave to keep working and himself to keep receiving the resultant profit.

People who want to avoid privilege in discussion are privileged. They are also slave owners.

I get what you're trying to say, but look at the way you're saying it. It's not very conducive to proper discussion. Please don't use a kafkatrap in a discussion about kafkatraps.

Anyways, as an actual response to your points, privilege is something everybody has. Your argument seems to be that people with excess privilege don't want to lose theirs, as a privilege that is shared amongst everybody is no longer technically a privilege. I would like to ask "Who gets to determine who has excess privilege?" and "Which group gets to claim the prize of least privileged?" In crude terms, privilege is a pissing contest to see not who can piss the farthest, but to see who got pissed on the most.

A person's argument should be judged on merit, regardless of who they are. This does not mean that the position they are speaking from has no influence on the insight they have into certain issues.

You're talking about the way someone reaches an argument, right? I suppose that matters, such as if a neo-nazi were to make a point about social changes, I'd take their personal position into account when considering their argument. However, I would like to argue that bringing up privilege is not an attempt to point out a person's position, because it focuses solely on whatever positive aspects of the "privileged" that the user of the privilege argument can point out, and completely ignores any negative aspects or suffering that the "privileged" has encountered.

I will agree with you that a person's background is something that should be considered when examining their argument, but privilege is not the way to do it. Privilege dehumanizes by cutting out a person's life story through reducing it to the conditions of their birth that they have no control over.

 

[DC_78]

Using privilege in discussion is a form of discrimination. When you start talking about privileges, you enter territory where you value the way a person is born above their beliefs and points. The only reason why privilege is "acceptable" in arguments today is that it is solely used against people who are white or male, who are the modern acceptable targets for abuse.

This is not the case. The intent is to encourage people to recognise the position from which they are speaking; recognising that people have differing experiences is not valuing certain characteristics more than others.

A person's argument should be judged on merit, regardless of who they are. This does not mean that the position they are speaking from has no influence on the insight they have into certain issues.

"Privilege" is not a perfect concept, but most disagreements I've seen are built on fundamental misunderstandings like the above.

Yeah... The intent is to encourage people to recognise their position, but the practice is to use privilege as a way to shut down discussion by invalidating the privileged one's argument. It is a giant ad hominem some people on the internet use far too much.

And the entire concept reminds me of Original Sin and is to American centric. The only privilege I can see casting onto society is neurotypical vs. neuro-atypical. Everything else in the theory promotes victimhood as some sort of twisted achievement to stifle dissenting arguments. The theory devalues the actual effort and struggle used by anyone to achieve success. I saw it first hand in OWS gatherings in the Midwest and was a major factor in that movement fizzling. At the time my friends and I, all solidly liberal democrats, ascribed it to white guilt.

As a father of a strong young woman the concept of privilege goes literally goes against everything I have tried to teach her in life. My daughter will know that if she works hard enough and tries she can accomplish anything. If she fails it will not be because some social science theory invisibly held her back and to try again. If she succeeds it will not be because of the color of her skin or her parents wealth, but the drive and effort that got her there. In my opinion that is far healthier a mindset.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

That's pretty much why USA law is based in "innocent until proven guilty". The subjectivity of "degrees of guilt" is good for the philosophical context; but unpractical in the real world.

Unpractical and potentially inaccurate, but it is one of the most common practices on the internet(and exclusively model C the courtroom).
As such, we must all get use to it, if we haven't by now...

Besides, even a person is guilty, that does not prove that person is wrong[citation needed].