The Spectator 🇺🇸

The intense backlash for plainly describing Mao as a dictator is an exercise in psychological conditioning. Consider what is actually happening when activists insist that others affirm that biological males can become women. Publicly endorsing claims that contradict observable evidence and common sense imposes a significant reputational cost on the speaker. That cost makes defection more expensive and demonstrates that the speaker is a fully committed member rather than a free-rider who might abandon the tribe when conditions change. The more prima facie absurd the claim, the stronger the signal. In this respect, “Mao was not a dictator” functions in the same way. Its defiance of readily available historical evidence turns it into a sacred shibboleth - those who affirm it at the expense of their own credibility show that the group’s moral authority supercedes everything else. It is therefore a mechanism for sorting the compliant from the non-compliant. The people who readily accept the claim or remain silent while others are punished for rejecting it, are those who prioritize commercial access, relationships, and social standing above dignity and truth. The tremendous penalties incurred by Mbappé and La Liga for failing the slightest of slights on Mao’s legacy are meant to be noticed and internalized by everyone else. They illustrate the practical consequences of refusing to toe the line. What follows is a gradual narrowing of acceptable statements that foreign individuals can hold without commercial penalty. You may not be a Chinese citizen, but you will live under their moral codes and law. Each time someone subordinates evidentiary scrutiny to the demands of solidarity, this habit is reinforced. Repeat a falsehood often enough, and the distinction between what is useful to believe and what is true begins to erode. ✍️ Me in @TheSpectator: spectator.com/article/why-ch… (btw I'm quite proud of the title IYKYK)