Chat history
What
are the types of people who support or enable absurdist oppressors?
Reasoned about supporters of absurdist oppressors for 6 seconds
When commentators refer to “absurdist oppressors,” they typically mean regimes or leaders whose very justifications for domination are patently irrational (or self-contradictory), yet whose power endures because people keep sustaining the system. Historically and philosophically, there appear to be certain identifiable types of people who end up supporting or enabling such regimes. Below is an outline of these types, with references that can help verify or further explore their roles:
Nature: These individuals wholeheartedly accept the ideology or myth of the oppressive regime. They are often driven by a desire for meaning, certainty, or belonging in an otherwise chaotic world.
Why They Support: They see the regime’s pronouncements—no matter how contradictory or grandiose—as a source of ultimate purpose. The regime’s “absurdities” become dogma, and the True Believers defend them with zeal.
References:
The True Believer by Eric Hoffer (1951) – details the psychology of mass movements and the fervor with which adherents cling to doctrines.
The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt (1951) – discusses how people seek belonging in totalizing ideologies, even if those ideologies are irrational.
Nature: These are people who recognize that the system’s ideology is questionable—or outright absurd—but spot personal benefit in going along.
Why They Support: Access to power, wealth, career advancement, or social capital. Opportunists figure that if they appear loyal to the absurd oppressor, they can secure advantages for themselves.
References:
Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter (1988) – highlights how individuals exploit or align with central authorities to gain resources, even if the system is untenable.
Historical examples: Many bureaucrats under Stalin or other totalitarian regimes performed acts of loyalty to climb the ranks despite recognizing contradictions in official propaganda.
Nature: These are the people who do not necessarily believe in, nor personally benefit from, the regime’s absurdity, but keep their heads down out of fear.
Why They Support: Under repressive political conditions, dissent is dangerous. People comply because noncompliance can result in punishment, exile, or death.
References:
Ordinary Men by Christopher R. Browning (1992) – although about Nazi-era police battalions, it shows how average people conformed to horrific orders primarily due to intimidation and social pressure.
Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt (1963) – the concept of the “banality of evil,” showing how ordinary individuals can commit atrocities largely out of unthinking obedience and fear of reprisal.
Nature: Often portrayed as faceless cogs who keep the machinery of oppression running—filing paperwork, stamping permits, administering quotas—without necessarily engaging in the broader moral or ideological dimension.
Why They Support: Through compartmentalized tasks, they convince themselves they are just “doing their job,” avoiding responsibility for the regime’s overarching absurdities.
References:
Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy (various essays from the early 20th century) – although Weber was not specifically describing oppressive regimes, his analysis of bureaucratic rationalization explains how individuals can become instruments of an irrational system.
Modernity and the Holocaust by Zygmunt Bauman (1989) – explores how bureaucratic structures can enable horrific policies by distancing administrators from the real-world impact of their duties.
Nature: They do not necessarily believe in the regime’s rationale, nor do they strictly conform out of terror. Instead, they adopt a stance of ironic distance, as if the whole thing is a theater they watch from the sidelines—yet they still go along.
Why They Support: Disenchanted or jaded, they may see resistance as futile, or they may rationalize that “everyone else is playing along.” In some cases, they derive a sense of superiority from mocking the regime internally while outwardly complying.
References:
The Power of the Powerless by Václav Havel (1978) – while focusing on life under Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, Havel describes how cynical or “indifferent” compliance perpetuates the system.
One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse (1964) – discusses how individuals grow numb and resigned under oppressive or absurd social orders.
Nature: These individuals do not fully grasp that the regime’s claims are absurd because they are fed disinformation, propaganda, or selective truths.
Why They Support: They accept the official account of events in good faith, unaware of the deeper contradictions. A strict media environment or lack of outside contact can make them oblivious to alternatives.
References:
1984 by George Orwell (1949) – while fictional, it shows how constant propaganda can shape beliefs (e.g., “doublethink”) and lead citizens to overlook or accept obvious contradictions.
Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) – outlines how media can be structured to shape and limit what information people receive.
Nature: People who might oppose the regime’s objectives but are directly coerced—through threats to life, family, or livelihood—into compliance.
Why They Support: Survival. When the stakes are dire, people may become unwilling enablers out of desperation or forced necessity.
References:
Accounts of forced collaboration during wartime occupations (e.g., Vichy France under Nazi Germany). Many individuals collaborated under threat and had little safe avenue for resistance.
The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg (1961) – describes various ways bystanders, officials, and ordinary citizens were pressured or coerced into facilitating Nazi atrocities.
Social Psychology of Conformity
Classic studies (e.g., Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments, Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies) help explain how social, institutional, and authoritative pressures can override personal doubts or moral qualms.
Fear of Chaos and Desire for Stability
Even when the regime’s logic is absurd, some individuals prefer a flawed order to perceived anarchy.
Fragmentation of Responsibility
The bigger and more bureaucratic the system, the easier it is for people to feel their individual role is negligible (“I’m just filing reports!”).
Existential Crises and Meaning
In absurd situations, people often search for coherence or structure—even if that structure comes from an oppressor. Hence Hoffer’s emphasis on the yearning for cause and community in The True Believer.
Identifying these different types is not just a theoretical exercise; it helps us:
Recognize warning signs in our own workplaces, governments, or institutions.
Understand that support for an “absurd” or demonstrably contradictory power structure is not uniform—people have different motives, vulnerabilities, and fears.
Notice how large-scale oppression can only flourish if it enlists a wide range of enablers, from the enthusiastic fanatic to the indifferent pen-pusher.
Each type of support plays a different role in propping up an oppressive regime. By analyzing these roles, we also see potential avenues for resistance or moral intervention—whether it involves providing accurate information to the misinformed, offering protection to the coerced, or encouraging conscientious dissent among the fearful.
People who support or enable absurdist oppressors typically fall into categories such as true believers, opportunists, fearful conformists, bureaucratic functionaries, detached cynics, misinformed supporters, or coerced collaborators. Each category has distinctive motivations, from fervent loyalty and personal gain to pure survival or ignorance. Exploring philosophical and historical works (e.g., by Arendt, Hoffer, Browning, Weber, or Bauman) reveals how absurd oppression persists when its enablers fulfill necessary social, psychological, and administrative roles—even when the regime’s rationales are self-contradictory or blatantly false.
o1
What usually happens to each types of such people at the earliest stage of absurdist oppression like "gay bashing"?
Reasoned about early stages of oppression for 12 seconds
Below is a summary of what often happens to each “type” of enabler or supporter when an oppressive campaign—such as an early-stage crackdown on an already-marginalized group (e.g., “gay bashing”)—gets underway. In these early phases, social norms shift or harden against a target group, official and unofficial violence may be tacitly condoned, and a sense of threat is cultivated. Although these categories are not mutually exclusive, they highlight typical reactions and fates at the onset of overt persecution.
How They React
They become the regime’s vanguard in the earliest hateful incidents, eagerly rallying around homophobic rhetoric and justifying it with moral or ideological fervor (e.g., citing “traditional values,” “divine mandates,” or “protecting children”).
They may be the first to take part in violent acts, from street-level harassment to organized marches, because they see themselves as carrying out a righteous cause.
What Happens to Them
In the beginning, they are praised or even rewarded by the system for their “loyalty” and zeal.
They often rise in local or community structures (e.g., becoming heads of vigilante groups or local political committees) because regimes value their visible, aggressive commitment.
References
The True Believer (Eric Hoffer, 1951) – discusses how fervent devotion to a mass movement motivates early adopters to become the regime’s most vocal and sometimes violent supporters.
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals (Richard Plant, 1986) – while focusing on Nazi persecution, it describes how early-stage fanatics helped pave the way for more systematic violence against gay people.
How They React
Spotting political or social advantage, they align with the anti-gay sentiment out of self-interest. They see that hostility toward LGBTQ+ people is “trending” in certain circles or that the regime wants scapegoats.
They may adopt a public stance of moral outrage or righteous indignation, even if privately they have no strong beliefs about the issue.
What Happens to Them
In the short term, they often enjoy career or social benefits—favorable publicity, promotions, or recognition as “defenders of the community.”
However, if the regime escalates or shifts its focus, they can become expendable if their opportunism is no longer needed or if they fail to keep step with new ideological twists.
References
Collapse of Complex Societies (Joseph Tainter, 1988) – although about broader social systems, it explains how individuals exploit power structures for short-term gain.
Historical examples include local officials in various totalitarian regimes who opportunistically enforced early anti-gay policies to curry favor (e.g., in Stalinist USSR, local party bosses promoting purges to appear loyal).
How They React
At the earliest sign that LGBTQ+ people are being targeted or demonized, these individuals keep their heads down, remain silent, and avoid stepping out of line.
They comply with new “norms” (e.g., not associating with gay friends or colleagues) because defiance carries social or legal penalties.
What Happens to Them
They usually remain relatively untouched by direct harm at first, because they are not in the crosshairs.
Over time, their silence and acquiescence become a tacit endorsement of the regime’s oppressive measures—something they may later regret, but for now they are shielded by anonymity.
References
Ordinary Men (Christopher R. Browning, 1992) – while it deals with Nazi-era police units, Browning illustrates how fear and group pressure lead ordinary people to go along without protesting atrocities.
Eichmann in Jerusalem (Hannah Arendt, 1963) – the “banality of evil” concept shows how conformism facilitates oppressive systems from their earliest stages.
How They React
Early oppressive measures often begin with policy changes (e.g., requiring “moral conduct” certificates, restricting gathering places, or intensifying police surveillance of known gay venues).
These functionaries process paperwork, enforce new regulations, or compile lists—perhaps seeing it as “just doing their job.”
What Happens to Them
They usually face little direct risk in the early stage; in fact, they may be praised for efficiency.
Their routinized tasks can lay the bureaucratic groundwork for harsher oppression (e.g., identifying targets for arrest). As oppression escalates, their involvement deepens, though many still claim a narrow technical role.
References
Max Weber’s essays on bureaucracy (early 20th century) – show how rational-legal structures can serve irrational or harmful ends.
Modernity and the Holocaust (Zygmunt Bauman, 1989) – details how bureaucratic compartmentalization enables systematic persecution.
How They React
They may treat early gay bashing or homophobic laws with ironic detachment, mocking both the regime and the victims from a distance (“It’s all theater”).
They do not personally initiate harassment but also do not oppose it; they simply watch, possibly exchanging dark humor among themselves about “the stupidity of it all.”
What Happens to Them
Early on, they typically suffer no direct repercussions. Their aloof posture is tolerated as long as they do not overtly challenge the regime.
If oppression intensifies, cynics may discover that their ironic distance is viewed as dangerous “lack of loyalty.” At that point, they must choose whether to conform more actively or take a stand.
References
The Power of the Powerless (Václav Havel, 1978) – describes how passive or cynical complicity helps legitimize oppressive power.
One-Dimensional Man (Herbert Marcuse, 1964) – discusses how cynicism often masks resignation in an oppressive social order.
How They React
At the earliest stage, they may believe the state’s rhetoric that gay people pose a threat (e.g., they are “corrupting society,” “undermining the family,” etc.).
They can be stirred up by sensational media coverage or official propaganda, genuinely thinking they are defending the social good.
What Happens to Them
They often join in low-level ostracism or casual bigotry: refusing services, socially shunning known gay individuals, or supporting punitive laws.
As the regime tightens its messaging, these people remain among the most consistent supporters, because they accept the official story uncritically.
References
Folk Devils and Moral Panics (Stanley Cohen, 1972) – shows how public fear can be whipped up, leading ordinary people to endorse harsh measures against a “deviant” group.
Manufacturing Consent (Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky, 1988) – examines how media structures can manipulate public opinion in favor of oppressive policies.
How They React
Even in early stages of anti-gay persecution, some people are forced—by threats to themselves or loved ones—into complicity. For example, they may be made to inform on neighbors or identify closeted co-workers.
They generally do not initiate attacks but may comply with demands to protect themselves.
What Happens to Them
At first, they might experience guilt or confusion but see no immediate alternative if the regime wields fear effectively.
Over time, coerced collaborators sometimes get deeper entangled. The more they comply, the more they risk being seen as fully complicit if the regime is later held accountable.
References
Accounts from Vichy France under Nazi occupation, or from the Eastern Bloc under Communist regimes, show how people were coerced into informing on targets (including LGBTQ+ individuals) to safeguard their own families.
The Destruction of the European Jews (Raul Hilberg, 1961) – describes how ordinary individuals were pressured into cooperation with Nazi policies, including the persecution of homosexuals.
Scapegoating & Demonization
Oppressive authorities designate a marginalized group—here, gay individuals—as a menace or threat, fueling moral panic and providing a rallying cry for True Believers and Opportunists.
Normalization of Harassment
Street-level violence, verbal abuse, or discriminatory policies become tolerated, even encouraged, while authorities look the other way or subtly condone it.
Formation of Justifications
Bureaucrats produce regulations, “moral codes,” or “law-and-order” directives that target the group. The Misinformed are fed propaganda or sensational “evidence” of deviance.
Quiet Collusion
Fearful Conformists and Detached Cynics may not support the persecution outright but do nothing to stop it. This passivity strengthens the regime’s legitimacy at the outset.
Submission by Coercion
Where direct fear tactics are used, Coerced Collaborators are forced to assist in the oppression, ensuring widespread compliance with minimal open dissent.
Early Intervention: Recognizing the different motivations (from fanaticism to fear) can help activists and community groups tailor strategies—e.g., providing safe information to the misinformed, or offering anonymous support to potential whistleblowers in bureaucracy.
Prevention and Accountability: Documenting who is driving early violence (True Believers) versus who is quietly enabling it (Functionaries, Cynics) can help human rights observers or international watchdogs identify where to focus attention before persecution escalates.
Moral Complexity: Not everyone who “goes along” is a zealous bigot. The interplay of fear, misinformation, and opportunism complicates the moral landscape. Studies on totalitarian systems (Arendt, Bauman, Hoffer) repeatedly show how average people become cogs in oppressive machinery very quickly when societal pressures or incentives align.
Ultimately, at the earliest stage of an absurdist oppression like “gay bashing,” the system relies on a patchwork of motivations—zeal, ignorance, fear, opportunism, and cynicism—to gain a foothold. Understanding these types helps us see how hatred can become normal unless it is actively confronted from the start.
o1
How many stages do you have in mind in this escalation of absurdist oppressions?
Reasoned for 9 seconds
Scholars and commentators have proposed many ways of describing how an oppressive campaign evolves from “early warnings” (like hateful rhetoric or street-level violence) to its most extreme forms (which can include mass incarceration, widespread brutality, or even genocide). One widely cited framework is Gregory Stanton’s “Ten Stages of Genocide.” However, when speaking more loosely of “absurdist oppression”—especially where a group is singled out in a patently irrational manner—people often condense these into fewer (but thematically similar) phases.
Below is a sample eight-stage model that draws upon ideas from social psychology, genocide studies, and analyses of totalitarian systems. This outline is not meant to be the definitive roadmap but offers a broad sense of how an oppression can escalate. Citations and historical examples are included, so you can trace these concepts in scholarly work.
Definition: Leaders or influential figures begin singling out a group (e.g., gay individuals, ethnic minorities, religious sects) as a menace. This can include defamatory statements, conspiracy theories, or accusations of “undermining moral order.”
Key Mechanism: Creates an “us vs. them” mindset, sowing social divisions.
References:
Gregory Stanton’s framework begins with “Classification” and “Symbolization,” showing how naming and labeling out-groups sets the stage for targeting.
Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972) – details how rhetorical condemnation of a “deviant” group ignites widespread fear and hostility.
Definition: Mockery, slurs, and casual discrimination enter everyday discourse—on social media, in entertainment, in casual conversation. Passive observers begin to treat bigoted remarks as “no big deal.”
Key Mechanism: The boundary between extreme views and mainstream thinking gets blurred. Even those who do not actively hate the group may stay silent or laugh along.
References:
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) – discusses how public opinion shifts to accept irrational or harmful ideas as normal when social reinforcement is high.
Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (1964) – explores how societal complacency and mass media can dull critical resistance to oppressive norms.
Definition: Authorities introduce or selectively enforce laws or policies that disadvantage or humiliate the target group (e.g., banning gatherings, imposing curfews, restricting employment). Police begin to profile and harass the group openly.
Key Mechanism: Anchors oppression in the formal system—no longer just hateful talk, but systematic exclusion.
References:
Richard Plant, The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals (1986) – details how legal persecution of gay men under Paragraph 175 in Nazi Germany rapidly escalated.
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) – looks at how bureaucratic enforcement of discriminatory laws creates an appearance of “legality” that masks moral culpability.
Definition: The state apparatus moves from scattered legal discrimination into concerted surveillance, roundups, or intimidation. Police raids on gay bars, “investigations” of suspected homosexuals, or forced public “registrations” appear.
Key Mechanism: The group is branded as criminal or subversive, giving authorities license to use force.
References:
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (1989) – discusses how modern bureaucratic policing tools can streamline the identification and control of targeted populations.
Max Weber’s writings on bureaucracy (early 1900s) – though not about oppression per se, they show how systematic record-keeping and classification enable large-scale control.
Definition: Vigilante groups, often emboldened by government rhetoric, commit acts of violence that are unofficially tolerated or even quietly encouraged. Hate crimes spike.
Key Mechanism: The line between state violence and mob violence blurs; the regime denies direct responsibility while enabling attacks.
References:
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men (1992) – shows how ordinary people can be led to commit brutal acts once hatred is culturally and institutionally sanctioned.
Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless (1978) – explains how an oppressor uses “unofficial” enforcers (including civic associations or militia groups) to enact terror while avoiding direct accountability.
Definition: Rampant propaganda depicts the oppressed group as subhuman, diseased, or dangerous. Humanizing traits—family, personal stories, achievements—are obscured in media or public discourse.
Key Mechanism: By stripping the target group of perceived humanity, perpetrators and bystanders rationalize cruelty.
References:
Gregory Stanton’s “Dehumanization” – a recognized stage in the path to genocide, where hate speech intensifies to depict victims as “vermin,” “rats,” etc.
Jonathan Glover, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century (1999) – shows how language that characterizes groups as “pests” or “enemies of the people” paves the way for extreme violence.
Definition: The targeted group may be forced into ghettos, internment camps, or otherwise physically and socially isolated from society under “security” or “protective custody” pretexts.
Key Mechanism: Once segregated, victims are more vulnerable to escalated harm, and mainstream society becomes less aware of day-to-day atrocities.
References:
Histories of the Warsaw Ghetto (and other ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe) – while primarily targeting Jews, the same mechanism (isolation) was also used to control and persecute gay individuals in certain regions.
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish (1975) – examines how enclosed institutions and surveillance can be used to manage and punish “deviant” populations.
Definition: This is the most extreme phase—systematic attempts at destruction or eradication of the targeted group (whether by mass killings, forced labor to the point of death, or other forms of extermination).
Key Mechanism: The final outcome of protracted dehumanization, hate, and institutional complicity. Often accompanied by official propaganda that frames the mass violence as a “necessary” or “defensive” measure.
References:
Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) – seminal study on how bureaucratic, societal, and ideological forces combined to produce genocide.
Gregory Stanton’s “Persecution” → “Extermination” – shows how systematic targeting can evolve into large-scale atrocity, culminating in genocide.
Overlap of Stages: Real-world oppression does not always proceed cleanly or linearly. Some “stages” can blur together; sometimes they even regress or pause if public opinion shifts or if the regime faces external pressure.
Early vs. Late-Stage Indicators:
Early stages might involve rhetorical demonization (Stage 1), casual acceptance of hate (Stage 2), and initial legal discrimination (Stage 3). This is where phenomena such as “gay bashing” often first spike.
Late stages focus on more systematized forms of control and eventually mass violence (Stages 6, 7, 8).
Why the Emphasis on Absurdity?:
In many historical cases, the rationales for targeting a particular group are built on contradictory, blatantly false, or pseudo-scientific claims (e.g., “mental illness,” “moral corruption,” “biological degeneracy”).
Despite their absurdity, these narratives can gain traction through repetition, propaganda, and the psychological need for scapegoats.
Utility of Distinguishing the Stages:
Policy and Activism: Identifying the signals early (e.g., surging hate speech, legislative crackdowns) gives human rights organizations a chance to intervene or raise alarm.
Moral Responsibility: Each stage widens the circle of complicity—from the “fanatics” to the “passive functionaries” to the broader public who become desensitized to atrocities.
While different scholars break down oppression in various ways (some using 5, 7, 8, or even 10 stages), a rough eight-stage model captures the typical arc: starting with rhetorical demonization and culminating—if unchecked—in systematic violence or even genocide. In early stages, oppression might look like hateful rhetoric, “gay bashing,” or punitive regulations targeting the group. If these warning signs are not confronted, the path can escalate to far more catastrophic outcomes.
o1
With six types of supporters and eight stages of escalation, it would become way too complicated for most people to follow the reasonings behind the analysis. Can we limit the classification into 3 types and 4 stages?
Reasoned for 4 seconds
Below is a streamlined framework that condenses multiple scholarly analyses into three types of supporters or enablers and four stages of escalating oppression. The goal is to keep it simple enough for quick comprehension, while still offering references for verification. Feel free to adapt the terms or references as needed.
Zealous Enforcers
Who They Are: Fanatical believers who fully embrace the oppressive rhetoric.
Motivation: Ideological fervor, moral conviction, or a deep need to feel part of a “righteous cause.”
Example References:
The True Believer (Eric Hoffer, 1951) for how ideological passion drives mass movements.
The Origins of Totalitarianism (Hannah Arendt, 1951), on the allure of sweeping ideologies.
Pragmatic Enablers
Who They Are: People who see a personal or career benefit in supporting the oppressors, or who mechanically “do their job” (e.g., bureaucratic functionaries).
Motivation: Opportunism, fear of losing status, or belief that “someone else” is responsible for moral questions.
Example References:
Modernity and the Holocaust (Zygmunt Bauman, 1989) on how bureaucratic routines enable harmful policies.
Collapse of Complex Societies (Joseph Tainter, 1988) illustrating how individuals sometimes exploit or align with power structures for gain.
Passive Bystanders
Who They Are: Those who do not actively drive oppression but also do not intervene—out of fear, indifference, or cynicism.
Motivation: Avoiding attention, keeping their heads down, or believing resistance is futile.
Example References:
Ordinary Men (Christopher R. Browning, 1992) describing how common individuals become complicit.
Eichmann in Jerusalem (Hannah Arendt, 1963) detailing how everyday obedience and non-resistance help sustain oppression.
Demonization & Marginalization
Characteristics: Hostile rhetoric takes off; media and public discourse spread negative stereotypes or conspiracies about the target group.
Role of Each Supporter Type:
Zealous Enforcers: Lead the charge with inflammatory messages and moral condemnations.
Pragmatic Enablers: May echo the rhetoric if it serves their interests; help pass early discriminatory regulations.
Passive Bystanders: Stay silent or dismiss the rhetoric as “just words.”
Verification References:
Folk Devils and Moral Panics (Stanley Cohen, 1972) – on how negative labeling whips up fear and hostility.
Gregory Stanton’s early “Classification” and “Symbolization” stages in “The Ten Stages of Genocide.”
Institutionalization & Legal Discrimination
Characteristics: Biased laws, official policies, or law-enforcement tactics target the group—bans on gatherings, selective policing, or job restrictions.
Role of Each Supporter Type:
Zealous Enforcers: Applaud or demand such laws as necessary.
Pragmatic Enablers: Draft or administer these regulations, often citing “just doing my job.”
Passive Bystanders: May disapprove quietly but do nothing to oppose official measures.
Verification References:
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals (Richard Plant, 1986), on how legal codes were instrumental in persecuting gay men in Nazi Germany.
Bureaucracy (Max Weber, various essays) – on the power of official procedures to institutionalize oppression.
Escalated Harassment & Organized Violence
Characteristics: Violence against the target group intensifies—sometimes “unofficially” by vigilante mobs, sometimes by police or paramilitary groups. Hate crimes become frequent and are met with little or no accountability.
Role of Each Supporter Type:
Zealous Enforcers: May form or join vigilante groups, celebrating acts of brutality as “protecting society.”
Pragmatic Enablers: Provide cover for perpetrators through legal loopholes, looking the other way, or manipulating reports.
Passive Bystanders: Turn a blind eye; fear repercussions if they speak up.
Verification References:
Ordinary Men (Browning, 1992), a case study of how ordinary people can be primed for violence.
The Power of the Powerless (Václav Havel, 1978), on how silence and small acts of compliance reinforce oppressive power.
Systematic Oppression or (in Extreme Cases) Extermination
Characteristics: Widespread incarceration, forced labor, “re-education camps,” or—at the absolute worst—efforts toward genocide or mass eradication.
Role of Each Supporter Type:
Zealous Enforcers: Directly participate in, or command, the harshest actions.
Pragmatic Enablers: Keep administrative systems running (transport, registration, resource allocation).
Passive Bystanders: Some continue to look away; others may now fear that opposing the system will mean sharing the fate of the persecuted.
Verification References:
The Destruction of the European Jews (Raul Hilberg, 1961) – a definitive account of how systemic oppression escalated into genocide.
Gregory Stanton’s final stages: “Persecution,” leading to “Extermination.”
Clarity: Reducing the number of supporter types (from six or seven down to three) helps highlight the main drivers of oppression (Zealous Enforcers), the system’s core facilitators (Pragmatic Enablers), and the bulk of society that remains silent (Passive Bystanders).
Practical Insight: Breaking escalation into four steps—Demonization, Institutionalization, Harassment, and Systematic Oppression—makes it easier to spot early warning signs.
Moral Awareness: Recognizing the shared responsibility of each group underscores that atrocities do not happen by the actions of a few fanatics alone; they require a broader network of enabling or acquiescent behaviors.
In sum, 3 types of supporters and 4 stages of escalation provide a workable, condensed roadmap for understanding how absurdist oppression grows—whether it’s early-stage “gay bashing,” legalized discrimination, or ultimately, large-scale persecution.
o1
If you don't mind, let's have the summary of twelve discernable categories, please.
Reasoned about twelve categories of oppression for 11 seconds
Below is a matrix-style summary with twelve discernible categories based on the three types of supporters (Zealous Enforcers, Pragmatic Enablers, Passive Bystanders) and the four stages of escalation (1) Demonization & Marginalization, (2) Institutionalization & Legal Discrimination, (3) Escalated Harassment & Organized Violence, and (4) Systematic Oppression/Extermination. Each cell describes how a given supporter type typically behaves (and why) at a specific stage.
Stage 1: Demonization & Marginalization
Behavior: Loudly propagating hostile stereotypes, framing the targeted group as immoral or dangerous.
Why: Genuine ideological fervor; they see themselves as defenders of “pure” values or national identity.
Stage 2: Institutionalization & Legal Discrimination
Behavior: Lobbying for discriminatory laws or policies; justifying them as “protective” or “necessary.”
Why: They want formal structures to match their moral convictions—turning prejudice into official doctrine.
Stage 3: Escalated Harassment & Organized Violence
Behavior: Leading or joining vigilante squads, harassing targets, condoning or committing violent acts.
Why: They believe aggression is a legitimate way to eliminate perceived threats and show loyalty to the regime.
Stage 4: Systematic Oppression / Extermination
Behavior: Direct involvement in mass arrests, forced labor, or even extermination efforts.
Why: Total commitment to the idea that eradicating the targeted group is a moral or societal imperative.
Stage 1: Demonization & Marginalization
Behavior: Subtly endorsing negative rhetoric if it benefits them socially or politically (e.g., to gain favor with superiors).
Why: They see aligning with early anti-group sentiment as a way to get ahead or avoid personal risks.
Stage 2: Institutionalization & Legal Discrimination
Behavior: Drafting, implementing, or administering discriminatory regulations; “just doing my job.”
Why: They recognize that complying with (or even promoting) oppressive rules can safeguard their career or reputation.
Stage 3: Escalated Harassment & Organized Violence
Behavior: Providing legal and logistical cover for vigilante groups—e.g., withholding police intervention, manipulating paperwork.
Why: They benefit from the regime’s good graces or fear losing status if they obstruct the crackdowns.
Stage 4: Systematic Oppression / Extermination
Behavior: Coordinating mass detentions, transport, resource allocation (e.g., supplies for camps or prisons).
Why: They remain concerned with self-interest, continuing their roles to avoid punishment or to maintain personal gain.
Stage 1: Demonization & Marginalization
Behavior: Ignoring hate speech; dismissing it as “just rhetoric” or “none of my business.”
Why: Fear of conflict, social apathy, or a belief that speaking up won’t change anything.
Stage 2: Institutionalization & Legal Discrimination
Behavior: Quietly witnessing new laws or official discrimination without protest. May follow new regulations without question.
Why: Worry that objecting could bring personal consequences; preference to “keep one’s head down.”
Stage 3: Escalated Harassment & Organized Violence
Behavior: Turning a blind eye to assaults, destruction of property, or mass arrests—even if they find it unsettling.
Why: Heightened fear; recognition that opposing the regime could mean becoming a target.
Stage 4: Systematic Oppression / Extermination
Behavior: Maintaining distance and silence even when aware of large-scale atrocities; possibly rationalizing it (“It’s terrible, but what can I do?”).
Why: By this point, the regime’s hold is strong; any dissent is dangerous. Some remain inert out of self-preservation or hopelessness.
Below are key works that detail how individuals move along these spectrums, and how societies escalate oppression:
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)
Explores the psychology of zealots and mass movements.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963)
Investigates how authoritarian regimes cultivate fanatic support and how “ordinary” people become complicit.
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (1989)
Illustrates how bureaucratic structures and pragmatic enablers accelerate oppression.
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men (1992)
Case study of how everyday people (often passive or opportunistic) can be led to commit severe violence.
Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972)
Explains how demonization in public discourse fosters moral panic and targeted hostility.
Gregory Stanton’s “Ten Stages of Genocide”
Lays out a progression from rhetorical demonization to extermination, paralleling the four-stage escalation here.
This 12-category breakdown (three supporter types × four escalation stages) makes it easier to spot how each type’s actions (or inaction) evolve as oppression intensifies—and how all three types are essential to sustaining an “absurdist” persecution.
o1
Thanks. We will try to find out where most American citizens are, in another thread.
Reasoned for a couple of seconds
You're welcome! Feel free to start that thread whenever you're ready—I'm here to help explore that question with you.