When progressives oppose conservatives for being visibly insensitive to those experiencing intersectionality(i.e., how overlapping forms of discrimination typically has multiplying effects), reacting to a group that functions best when self-motivated and not shamed into compliance fails to sustainably help the marginalized.

When conservatives oppose intersectionality as mere slogan, reacting to those championing the intersectionally marginalized fails to demonstrate the conservative value for personal freedom or self-initiative.

Opposing what your foe needs does not extinguish a conflict but enflames it. Opposing another’s inflexible needs predictably and needlessly triggers their defensiveness. Which leads to more problems than respecting their affected needs. No matter how privileged by widely accepted norms, no one can change what their life requires to keep functioning.

Short for "opposition culture", oppo culture refers to the set of written and unwritten norms that privileges or compels one to take an antagonistic stance against others with whom one disagrees. Often to the point of opposing what they cannot change: their needs.

Defunction: adversarialism norms

Oppo culture privileges instantly opposing others in objectifying ways. Disagreement turns into harsh hostilities. This set of adversarial norms privilege provoking defensiveness, instead of asking questions out of genuine curiosity.

Any potential for mutual regard gets immediately tossed aside. Resistance from the provoked “proves” how evil they are. Little to no reflection can be afforded to recognize one’s own fault in the matter. And human potential for empathy, understanding and love gets summarily quashed.

These social norms normalize adversarialism. As explained by sociologist Gordon Fellman in his book Rambo and the Dalai Lama, adversarialism is opposing others largely for the sake of opposition. To overcome others, to win over others for some personal or team gain.

Anankelogy recognizes this privileged reaction as “indulgent side-taking”. Typically to pacify some discomfort, this rush to a take side typically includes these eight features.

1. Overemphasizes each other's differences while disregarding common ground.

2. Relies on impersonal arguments to avoid engaging relevant specifics.

3. Resists addressing or resolving needs when easing discomfort of those needs.

4. Opposes the other side’s inflexible needs that they cannot change, called moral conflation (i.e., conflates inflexible needs to flexible responses to them).

5. Misapplies critique of moral relativism and moral neutrality.

6. Dismisses good faith efforts to understand all sides as bothsidesismor false balance. All natural needs affected by a conflict exist equally.

7. Provokes the opposed side’s defensiveness to produce more of what is opposed.

8. Self-righteously and arrogantly serves own conflict porn to win at the expense of others.

These widely privileged reactions pull many into perpetual conflict. Getting defensive triggersthe other’s defenses, effectively capturing both sides in mutual defensiveness. Each dig in their heels and stay guarded instead of meaningfully resolving the conflict.

Examples: 

Politics tend to be rich with examples of privileged adversarial reactions.

• Wokeism. Opposing “woke” without defining the term or showing empathy toward those who find hope in raising awareness of suffered social inequalities, many who readily admit that it gravitated into a petty “wokeism” that turned excessive, but not that continuing social injustices are okay. After all, is not the opposite of woke is to stick your head in the sand and let some marketing genius convince you of his attractive lies?

• Capitalism. Denouncing capitalism as a monolithic economic system without recognizing how nimble business ownership incentivized enough productivity to lift many out of the tyranny of abject poverty, or recognizing those business owners who admit some faults within capitalism.

• DEI. Opposing Diversity Equality Inclusion initiatives without addressing ongoing forms of systemic discrimination against marginalized groups risks igniting a backlash. Any excessive pro-DEI policy can be addressed and adjusted where necessary, without unraveling what marginalized people’s inflexibly need for their lives. In the long run, it does not serve the interests of conservatives if sparking a return to privileged prejudice and legalized discrimination for what no one can change.

• Russiagate. Russians did interfere with the 2016 election and Trump did vocally welcome it. Trump’s abrasive style smashed the Overton window on many fronts. From using Gish gallop to flooding the zone, he practically incited the Democrats to push back. On the surface, Democratic resistance appeared to blame Trump’s victory over Hillary on Russian collusion. The deeper story—passed over by both legacy and independent media—was how to return to a more civil politics. The Russian collusion narrative appeared to me as mere cope. Now we tolerate a race to the bottom, which furthers public disillusionment with the political process. If violence erupts, Trump appears ready to misuse the Insurrection Act to hold onto power. At its core, “Russiagate” was never actually about Russian collusion but about guarding democracy from a charismatic demagogue. The narrative distraction now seems to be working in Trump’s favor.

• Terrorism. One side’s resistance fighter is another side’s terrorist. Resistance fighters can win sympathy for their cause, but not so much if painted as terrorists. If we’re honest, almost all wars end up targeting noncombatants. George Washinton supported terrorizing and ethnic cleansing the Haudenosaunee for siding with the British amidst the Revolutionary War. The label is loaded language to coerce public perception away from the disadvantaged fighter’s cause. Any form of asymmetric warfare—guerillas, insurgents, rebels, militants—is easier to paint as the bad guys when having the resources to control the narrative. Meanwhile, keeping the war going by ignoring the underlying needs tends to be good for business for arms dealers, geopolitical actors and other benefiting stakeholders.

• Zionism. Supporting Holocaust survivors and their offspring to have a land of their own washes over the colonialist methods used to serve that end. The colonialism that early Zionists learned from their European oppressors has no place among Arabs already living in the lands around Jerusalem. Now their vehement resistance gets used against them, while their more diplomatic attempts get mostly ignored. Both Israeli Jews and the Palestinians have an inflexible need for security and for sovereignty, along with other needs that neither side can adjust for the other. Provoking each side’s defenses serves warmongers more than each side’s need for peace. There can be no peace until such objectively existing needs get properly respected. All else is commentary.

Refunction: responsive mutuality process