Purity Spiraling

Purity spiraling is a term that gained mainstream usage during the infamous gamergate days. It is defined quite well by urban dictionary here, where more or less it is the practice of trying to be "more pure" than the others in your ingroup, accompanied by everyone else doing the same, until nuance has been pummeled into a broken heap upon the ground. While the term was used to describe the behavior as it was perpetrated by those on the progressive side of things during the great gamergate controversy (and whether it existed before then, I couldn't tell you), any group can experience this, since "purity" in this case is described by the ideology of the group in question. If you're in an alt-right circle, a purity spiral may occur because one of your group chat friends is disgusted that you aren't fully onboard with a full and complete forcible deportation of all non-white people from the country. Another group chat member responds that the only true position is to execute them all, of course, and the purity spiral begins to see who is the most pure racist. By the end of the spiral, (which could take place over a day or over weeks) the ingroup's collective views become more extreme (another documented concept called "group polarization") and anyone who espouses a view short of total execution of non-whites is kicked out. Interestingly, the results vary - as it is equally possible for people to leave the movement due to this behavior as it is for them to become more radicalized and embroiled within it.

Purity spiraling also describes quite well the entirety of the progressive movement. The movement itself subsides off of a constant state of purity spiraling - everyone involved must move increasingly further left, the group itself imagining that it's modestly "solidly left" but no more, while they have long been advancing further left. In the same process, people who have been stagnantly moderate for twenty years become dangerous reactionaries in the eyes of the progressive movement as they continue to become further entrenched in being the wokest possible, accepting no less than complete and total purity within whatever their current metrics happen to be at the time.

 

From the outside looking in, it was truly bizarre to see opinions begin to pop up that, for example, it was not possible for a black man to rape a white woman, as rape is an expression of power, and black men as a group do not have power while white women do, thus any unwelcomed sexual interaction between these groups could not "legally" be considered rape. Everyone is supposed to understand that the concept of "power" as it relates to institutions and societal organization is different from the physical "power" one uses over another physically weaker person to commit rape, but that nuance was lost, here, because as a rule, critical theory disregards the individual and analyzes them only as a member of their hierarchical group. Hence the practice of viciously assaulting nuance until the bloody mess is unrecognizable - even nuance as simple and generally well understood as the concept that words can have two separate definitions that mean different things.

The fact of the matter is that, due to critical theory, these wild positions were inevitable. Back in the good ol' days, purity spiraling used to happen in relation to whether, for example, it was okay to say "retard". It seemed very justifiable to say, well, we simply cannot say rude words that denigrate a group of people, as it is impolite. The progressive movement's purity spiraling toward the consensus that it was not okay to say any mean words progressed to people finding the root usages of words like "dumb" and saying they were rude because they referred to people who could not speak, a disadvantaged group. This occurred over several years to the point where it's now very obviously not okay to say any even slightly maligned word - including words in different languages which are not rude at all, but sound rude in English. This seems like it should be something that is wrong to say is wrong, because now we're maligning a foreign language. The problem, of course, is that nuance was obliterated many years ago. Now we are running out of things to devolve into screaming outrage over, so words in other languages that sound like bad words in our language are the new purity vogue. The purity spiral from five years back has escalated into a purity tornado and it has torn through a very significant portion of our language.

Unfortunately, the purity spiral continues still. They have run out of words to designate rude after we removed half the English vernacular from acceptable usage. The purity spiraling must continue, however, as a rule, because that's a bare basic tenant of the progressive movement - progress, somewhere, anywhere, as long as you're moving somewhere (even if it's a descent into madness itself) you're progressing. Critical theory posits that if oppression exists, it must be because of existing power structures, and language is considered one of our social power structures. Thus, since oppression continues to exist, everything is suspect. This is also why everything is also white supremacy.

The problem for the average person who desires to be seen as a progressive member of the current leftism cult is that the purity spiral is nonsensical, and while they confidently agree with it, they usually do not actually have a justifiable reason for it. A member of the progressive ingroup thus often falls prey to the constant state of purity tornado that is whirling all around them, saying something they think will be acceptably pure, only to be accosted by the progressive wolves that what they have said was actually decidedly unwoke. We see here that David Hogg - a staunch gun control advocate - says something that makes complete sense as far as what his ideology is. He decries violent protests and gun usage, because he is for gun control. It is a sentiment that would probably have made it through without contesting in 2016, but because we are so far gone within the depths of the spiral, it was an offensive statement.

What's happening to the average, milquetoast progressive - the ones who are on board merely because they align most closely to them and would be aghast at being on the same side as any right-wing group - are losing their grasp of what is good and what is bad due to the chaos sewn by the overarching, constant state of purity whirlwind on which the progressive movement is centered. The progressive leftism cult resides within the eye of the purity tornado. As the tornado moves around - or, progresses, as it were - those who are unable to gauge the direction of the storm are caught in the winds. The eye itself becomes smaller and more difficult to find refuge in as people are no longer able to understand the terms of the purity whirlwind, where darlings of the mainstream left like David Hogg are suddenly attacked for views they've held without issue this entire time.

It should be obvious that the most recent developments as to what is good and what is bad were simply not always so. It is a clear progression from "it's certainly wrong to say retard, can we as a community please stop saying such offensive words," to "foreign words that sound offensive are fireable offenses". The problem is that not all the people within the group are fully cognizant that this is what has been happening, as they have - this entire time - merely been coasting along, cautiously taking social cues from their fellow progressives as to what was problematic or acceptable. The followers of popular leftism that are simply not sufficiently woke enough are being exposed by their own inability to keep up with the trajectory path of the purity tornado. These people are more or less imposter members of the woke mob - aligning with them out of necessity, since they would be sick to be perceived for even a moment as being anywhere other than solidly left.

A small interlude to this post, the inspiration in fact for it, is this thread seen here. What is essentially being said, here, is what I've pointed out. The "imposters" of the progressive movement reside there by necessity, attempting to take hints from the woke mob as to what is acceptable or not, hoping to blend in long enough to be "safe". It seems unnecessarily dramatic to word it this way - that they are almost hiding, even afraid to be judged as insufficiently woke, but that is the fact of the matter. Being perceived as right wing - or holding even a marginally right-of-center idea - gets you decidedly labeled a Nazi and white supremacist, something that the leftism ingroup sees as not simply bad, but devastating. They themselves view anyone right of center as being a literal monster, lacking any sense of humanity or empathy, the result of successful "dehumanization of the enemy" - a common tactic used during times of war to lessen the innate horror of murdering human beings. They could not bear to be considered anything less than a progressive or it would open them to attack, so they seek to avoid it as they would an electrical shock. They are aligned enough with progressiveness that they feel the same way about conservatives as the extremist radical progressive left does, but they are essentially fearful lemmings, attempting daily to navigate the winds of the purity tornado and avoid being thrown into the storm for a bad take.

They do not know why they believe what they do, they merely know that they must believe it or they will lose all they have accumulated by being a progressive grifter. The purity spiraling which was more or less intuitive before - words that are offensive are bad, respect all non-white culture, America is not the center of the world - are thrown into disarray now. It's impossible to know which "woke" position is going to be win out - do we respect a foreign language or condemn it for sounding like a slur in our language? Each progressive adherent wakes up not knowing whether their previously held convictions - gun violence is always bad - will be attacked for not accounting for people of color's utilization of power through violence, or some other concept that gained popularity the day before. No one knows whats going on anymore, an ideological chaos that is indiscernible to the average, typically consistent and thoughtful person. 

 

The intuitive positions - obviously it's wrong to judge non-white people's culture (which language is part of) - are in direct conflict with chaotic positions, such as how maligning a foreign language for sounding like an English slur most assuredly would be an "America is the center of the world" thought process, which we thought was wrong, but now it's okay, for this situation, but why is unknown. The progressivism cult will post hoc rationalize why it was wrong to say a foreign word that sounded like a slur, thus making up new "cues" that the imposters will try to mimic later, only to find in a similar but minutely different scenario, this argument loses out to yet another post hoc rationalization. All progressivism outrage is ultimately immediate, unquestionable feelings-based reactions and by its very nature cannot be discerned through logical pattern recognition.

The positions of progressive leftism change constantly as people attempt to one-up each other within the purity spiral. That is consistent with the defined driving factor of critical theory - dismantling systems of oppression. If oppression still exists, something is wrong in the systems, so they continue the spiral endlessly, trying to weed out all "white supremacy" within the systems, as that is their entire goal. We see here the outline for what is considered "white supremacy" - which is, as far as critical theory is concerned, merely the name for the system in which white people are perceived as having unfair levels of power. It is not, in this context, a malicious and brazen belief that white people are inherently superior. The issue, of course, is that "believing white people are inherently superior" is the colloquial understanding of "white supremacy" and the two become conflated - intentionally.

 

The usage of a term with such inherently negative connotations to describe the power system of the country is designed to cause the average person to turn away from association with the "power structure" in question and make it appear unquestionably bad. They did the same thing with "racism" - demand people accept that "all white people are racist" but insist that it only refers to unintentional happenstance that is almost never done intentionally, while simultaneously maintaining the colloquial understanding of "racist" as someone who hold malicious, intentional disdain for other races of people. To recognize that we are dealing with two separate definitions of a term that are being conflated as one in the same is too nuanced for the constant purity storm - thus it winds up being irrelevant that "white supremacy [as a power structure]" refers to more subtle, unintentional, almost nebulous concepts that are prevalent in society that is historically majority white. The term also means an active belief in inherent superiority of white people. The tenants of "white supremacy [as a power structure]" are thus "self-evidently" bad, because "white supremacy [as a belief in white superiority]" is bad, and we can see that they're the same thing because they're both called the same thing! Here is the same outline of what "white supremacy" is from a book - written in 2001.

The significance of it being from 2001 is heavy. The fact of the matter is that critical theory has been around in colleges for decades. It is only now bleeding so heavily into the mainstream culture as it's been more accepted and circulated. I have been online since 1998 - worried my hand me down junk computer would break for Y2K - and I have only just now seen this "white supremacy" outline last week, in 2020. The foundation for critical theory has been outlined for years, but as recently as 2-3 years ago, the purity spiral did not expel people who didn't understand it (yet). The postmodern critical theory concepts that were developed by pompous postmodernist pseudo-intellectuals twenty years ago are gaining more and more focus, but the people who pledged allegiance to progressivism in 2014-2016 did not actually know that. They simply knew lines were being drawn and drifted with the waves further left in order to maintain their social circles and online personas. 

What was intuitive purity spiraling before is now based around critical theory, which itself is not intuitive and based wholly on circular reasoning centered around the unprovable concept that "systems of power cause oppression and thus those systems must be changed". There is no factual, testable basis upon which this declaration stands - it is simply an assumed truth. Thus, the people who aligned with progressivism, but still believed in modernist concepts like "objectivity" - which is of course a system of white supremacy now - are not sure what to do. They cannot discern intuitively or through logic or reasoning what is good or what is bad, it is entirely up to the mob to decide. They must then take their cues from the mob - which is, itself, bickering back and forth over which is the most woke position, eventually deciding on one prevailing narrative based on what seems the least white-supremacisty. They haven't learned this, though, as they are unaware that the entire chaotic progressivism system is based on vapid, unprovable and simultaneously unchallengable assumptions. They continue to try and discern through patterns and logical reasoning what is woke and what is transgression, but there is no way to tell other than social cues by their ingroup. This method of only knowing what is right or wrong by being told is intentional, another part of critical theory, where truth is discerned by the voices of the oppressed, whichever one is loud enough to talk over the others being the winner.

This is one of the reasons why learning what critical theory is about, insofar as the history and purpose, is one of the best ways to free someone from its grasp. Unfortunately, many people continue to side with the adherents to critical theory out of what boils down to survival - to retain their following, continue their ad sponsorships, and maintain their social status. The average person may find it easy to escape, but these people who have based their lives and livelihood around their political personalities know very well they'll have their status torn to shreds if they don't double down on progressive ideology. They must continue the charade as long as possible, but are slowly being found out. Some will allow themselves to be bullied time and time again every time they lose their footing in the chaos of the storm, begging to be pulled from the torturous winds and back to the safety of the tornado's eye, without realizing they could simply leave the storm behind altogether. 

 

Much of this is due to ingroup loyalties, fear, peer pressure, and so forth - in other words, the normal kinds of social psychology that keeps people from thinking for themselves. It's hard for people to imagine that the people they thought were their friends are actually manipulating them - but it's likely that the people doing the manipulation do not realize they are, either. Many have checked in wholesale to the progressive leftism cult and could not fathom anything different. Life for them is simply constant mandatory conformity with the ever-present risk of ostracization at the smallest misstep. This hostile environment causes a situation where it becomes dangerous to question things that would be universally despised just four years ago - such as gratuitous sexual "education" for children who have only learned how to talk two years prior. If the mob thinks it's a good idea, opposing it is not a matter of "having a civil disagreement" but rather being entirely removed from your social circle - regardless of your political leanings, being forcibly outcast is often sufficient motivation to avoid stepping out of line. The thought of having to take refuge among the "others" of the outgroups seems degrading and repulsive. These are the social psychology blackmail tools that are being used to maintain the ever-present purity spiral of the progressivism cult. It's just a matter of how extensively you're willing to compromise your convictions and morals to retain your standing in your ingroup before you accept becoming an outcast as preferable.