> Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech.
First, the term "free speech" is overloaded-- it means a legal right to speak free of government interference, and it also means a cultural environment of pluralism where opposing views are welcomed and debate is encouraged. Here Ken conflates the two meanings.
Second, unlike legal norms, cultural norms are continuous rather than discrete. There are maybe 3-5 definitions of murder (premeditated, involuntary, etc.), but saying mean things is a continuum. You can live in a society like Soviet Union c 1930 where your coworker who wants your position calls for "the people's court" because of a joke you made-- a completely informal struggle session that doesn't involve the government. Or you can live in a society where you can express anything whatsoever and not get fired. Or at a million points in between.
Third, legal norms follow cultural norms. See gay marriage.
When people talk about cancel culture they talk about cultural norms shifting toward struggle sessions (the word "culture" is in the term!), and concerns that some day legal norms may follow this cultural shift. In this context the word "right" is used colloquially. Obviously nobody has a legal right to speak without fear of shaming.
We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. It isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand.
Everyone wants to do that, until they find themselves the target of a joke while struggling to have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise a family as a member of an unprivileged group with a lot of adverse baggage to overcome. Not everyone thinks such jokes are funny, and they have just as much a right to be pissed off about them as you think you have to make them. Getting along with your peers is an essential duty at most jobs, and that includes refraining from unnecessarily upsetting them.
> Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.
In 30+ years of being a "brown guy" in the U.S., the only thing that's ever really gotten under my skin is the self-righteous paternalism of white liberals when it comes to the social norms related to race and identity. It really gives me an understanding of what working class people (another target of liberal paternalism) must have felt like all these decades...
What’s driving me nuts is that “identity politics” is about fake identities. Most of these “identity groups” are fronts for the white progressives who donate to liberal causes. E.g. MacKenzie Scott donated tons of money to “AAPI causes.” https://asamnews.com/2021/06/17/mackenzie-scott-donates-2-7-.... What the heck does she know about Asians or what causes they care about? I asked my dad if he could recognize any of the organizations on the list. Of course he couldn’t. What does that tell you about the incentive structure of these identity activist groups? As a result, the “Asian identity” and the “Muslim identity” that I see in the media seems to be essentially progressivism with window dressing, and has nothing to do with what my parents or aunts and uncles think about our culture. In fact, it’s often overly hostile to our values.
“Identity politics” doesn’t actually reflect what people in these groups want, except incidentally. E.g. “Asian activists” flipped out at Andrew Yang for a taking a more pro-policing stance, but most Asian voters supported him in the primary: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang. White progressives talk incessantly about “Black and brown people” but they hated Eric Adams, who overwhelmingly won the “Black and brown” vote. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/opinion/nyc-mayor-adams.h.... It’s not groups pursing their own political interests, but the political capital of minority groups being put in service of causes championed mainly by white people.
It’s impossible to talk about these groups separately because our norms and policies around race have costs and benefits which must be balanced across all the minorities who will be on the receiving end. Maybe some people will be heartened by their white professors standing up and declaring themselves “gatekeepers of white supremacy” (https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator...) but a lot of other “people of color” are going to find such treatment othering and uncomfortable.
There’s also the very real risk that all this race consciousness holds back the progress of minorities. I know progressives imagine a utopian future where they’ve vanquished racism but people of color have to live in the real world. And looking back at my own life (growing up as a brown guy in Virginia), I don’t think it would have been better if everyone had been super conscious about my skin color versus their’s.
Given the potential costs to all members of minority groups, we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.” If we’re going to change the norms around how white people relate to minorities, we will have to take account of how everybody affected feels about that. Mostly white progressives knocking over tables and demanding extreme policies actually gets in the way of minorities getting to control how society treats them.
> they seek out and appreciate the allies they have on their side.
White “allyship” is problematic and paternalistic: https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/05/15/definition-racist-action... (“Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.”)
It’s an agency problem: white “allies” don’t suffer the harms they’re trying to address, and for the most part don’t bear the cost of unintended consequences. For example, as the dad of brown kids, I find that a lot of “anti-racist education” risks putting brown kids in a mindset that their success or failure depends on factors outside their control. By contrast, even if such education makes white kids feel guilty, it simultaneously tells them that they’re the ones with agency and power. The mostly white people advocating these educational policies for the most part don’t have to deal with the consequences to kids that might result.
Likewise, white progressives can freely engage in rhetoric and hostility to other whites and don’t have to suffer the consequences of any backlash. Frankly I’m perplexed why—if progressives think white people are as racist as they say—that they think it’s a good idea to constantly call half the country “white supremacists,” send them to the back of the vaccine line, etc.
Others can argue "we don't need your help," and that's fine, but at this point in time, given where we are today as a society, and the damage I see done to people on a frequent basis, I'd rather err on the side of helping in a constructive way, how the impacted people ask us to, and advocating for people to be respectful. Call people like me "paternalistic" and "othering" if you must; it's just a rhetorical smear as far as I'm concerned. Highfalutin' characterizations add as little to this conversation as simpler-sounding ones.
> we can’t just adopt the most extreme standards in deference to unspecified “numerous” people carrying unspecified “baggage.”
There's nothing extreme whatsoever about adopting a professional demeanor. You are arguing against a position I do not hold. Again, I beg you, check your straw men at the door, and stick to the subject.
As another "brown guy" who has been in the US for decades, I can only say: you must have really thick skin. Either that, or you haven't actually had to deal with any vicious "jokes" from the more privileged groups.
>> It really gives me an understanding of what working class people (another target of liberal paternalism) must have felt like all these decades...
Well, coming from someone who used to be an engineer and is now a lawyer, this is simply a stunning statement, to say the least. So you think you understand how working class people must feel like because of "self-righteous paternalism of white liberals"? That's just so incredibly tone-deaf and presumptions. Jesus Christ.
But 48% think it's a "minor problem" and 38% who think it's "not a problem at all." At the end of the day our social norms around race have to be broadly workable. Gearing our social norms around the 10% are not cost-free. The folks directly affected those norms may well be more worried about stifling friendships and interactions than about racism. It's like having your immune system--too sensitive isn't good either.
As to action items, have some perspective! Don’t feed the fear/outrage machine by writing overwrought stuff like this:
> Everyone wants to do that, until they find themselves the target of a joke while struggling to have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise a family as a member of an unprivileged group with a lot of adverse baggage to overcome.
This sort of attitude is othering and doesn’t reflect how most minorities actually experience and are affected by insensitive comments. As a corollary, be skeptical of activists—don’t let a minority of loud voices dictate how your approach to whole groups. And don’t overlook that social stability and harmony with others are also things that minorities want. Resist the urge to provoke an all-out race war through your rhetoric, writings, political support, etc.
Ironically, the progressives are getting increasing pushback precisely because they're failing to heed your advice, in the eyes of the general public. The NY Times has had an increasingly alarmed stream of editorials (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/opinion/politics/latinos-...) saying that minorities are drifting away from the Democrats to the GOP largely because the latter has been able to portray progressive overreach as a problem.
This is weak. You have stuff to say. Say it, don't just barb people.
I talk about left-wing cancel culture because it’s a marked departure from certainly what’s been my experience. Unless we go down the path of calling progressivism a new religion, I think we have to posit that the cause of left-wing hostility to ideological pluralism has a different cause.
The overwrought nature of @otterley’s post suggested one possible explanation. If people genuinely believe that members of “unprivileged groups” suffer so much from an errant joke or political statement (even one made outside their presence) that it affects their ability to “have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise their family” then that might explain their hostility to any expression that may even remotely affect such “unprivileged groups.” If issues of race, gender, immigration status, etc., are literally life and death, then that justifies zealotry.
That mindset and reaction, in turn, seems to me to be a direct outgrowth of liberal paternalism. You have people preoccupied with harms to other people—harms that they are unable to experience directly and thus cannot put into perspective. Nonetheless, they’re convinced that they understand how society should be reshaped to help the people they’re concerned about. It’s a political agency problem.
So where does that leave us? Is your point that it's disappointing to you that the left is now as responsible for ideological hostility as the right? Because the left has always been just as hostile as the right.
(I was frustrated with your previous comment, but am not with this one; I'm just responding to it because you took the time to write it.)
But I don’t see why liberals (broadly defined) need to be so ideological or hostile. I can understand why evangelical Christians are the way they are. But liberals, especially highly educated ones, should be able to look at the facts and see what is and what isn’t.
> So where does that leave us? Is your point that it's disappointing to you that the left is now as responsible for ideological hostility as the right? Because the left has always been just as hostile as the right.
I’m disappointed that liberal elites (and I don’t mean that pejoratively—I include myself in that class) aren’t being the grownups and taking care of stability and our institutions. I’m not surprised that zealous young college students are embracing radical ideas. I’m surprised that university administrators and deans are egging them on.
I don’t think it was always like this. There was an interregnum between when conservatives controlled the institutions and the present when things were more… liberal. Even among the liberal elite there were libertarian and populist impulses, which seem to have been driven away, leaving a strident Puritanism.
It makes exactly the same points (young liberals from Yale undermining American society etc.) but its written 50 years ago, when American business was pumping lead into the air and painting houses with it, while other nations had already phased it out. And complains that no one listens to businessmen, and politics only cares about the environment and consumer safety.
This was written by a supreme court judge (who incidentally voted for Roe Vs Wade because his secretary nearly died from a backstreet abortion) so no dummy, yet his points seem ridiculous to us now. What leads you to think you're not making the same mistakes? Especially as you seem to acknowledge that in the past things were too much on the conservative side and it's kids today that are taking it too far.
Are Asian Americans, who are better off financially than whites in America underprivileged?
No it isn’t. Not even close. There are countless examples of the right engaging in the same behaviors, including the recent massive wave of passing laws attempting to silence people.
Wait, what?
* Kaepernick/the NFL
* “Freedom Fries”
* Dungeons & Dragons
* Heavy metal and rap.
* Starbucks (happy holidays)
I mean you can easily pick out all sorts of attempts at “cancelling” by conservatives from the last 30 years without even having to think too hard about it. It’s an American tradition to virtue signal and cancel, it’s not relegated to the left.
In my experience, the successful ones are many decades old, and the more recent ones are unsuccessful. I mean, I don’t think heavy metal or dungeons and dragons have been meaningfully cancelled in any sense, and last time conservatives seriously tried to do so was two decades ago.
I agree that conservatives also attempt to cancel, it just doesn’t work when they do.
What would be the point? You're just going to move the goalposts again once we do.
In any case, yes, the post you replied to already mentioned one recent example. The Kaepernick kneeling "scandal" happened just 4 years ago. And it's an especially egregious example because President Trump even threatened to use the power of his office and take away NFL's non-profit status if he didn't get Kaepernick fired.
Also, cancelling happens every day in America. Is your son gay? Cancel him. Is one of your classmates gay? Bully him. Is your white daughter dating a black kid? Cancel her. Did a family member stop being a Mormon/Jehovah's witness/Muslim/Scientologist/Baptist/fundamentalist Christian, cancel them. Teaching black history? Cancel the teacher. Cancel the principal. Was your kid killed in Sandy Hook? Shut the f-up, or your life will be cancelled. Did you do your job correctly as a GOP election official and call the race for the Democrats? You better watch your back.
And yes, if your teenager becomes homeless, or ends up killing him/herself. I'd say that's a pretty "successful" cancellation. It's just so common, it has been normalized.
And the abortion clinics, it's not like the threats have stopped these past 10 years. It's just old news. That kind of shunning has never stopped. If it had stopped, we'd have abortion clinics everywhere in America.
And again, we're not saying that cancelling does not happen on the left, but claiming that cancelling is a tool predominantly used by the left is just nonsense. It's not just the left doing it. If you think it is, you've been watching too much Fox News.
Have you been living under a rock someplace?
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-...
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...
There is no Federal law governing abortion. State law governs abortions, subject to Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases that provide a Constitutional right to abortion within certain parameters that the States cannot abrogate.
The Supreme Court is already considering a Mississippi abortion law case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, nr. 19-1392) that, depending on the outcome, could significantly curtail this right, possibly lowering the deadline to 15 weeks. The decision is expected in June.
> There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the [Texas] case on abortion.
If they do, will you come back and admit you were wrong?
This is a classic No True Scotsman argument: that law was enacted by Texas Republicans and has been protected by the Republicans at various levels of federal court up to the Supreme Court, and copies of that law are being enacted by Republicans in other states. If you want us to believe that’s not aligned with mainstream conservatism, show that the larger conservative movement is fighting it.
Directly addressing what this person is saying with the facts isn't going to work, because it's obvious that nothing can convince them otherwise. I think it's better to look at why they've fixated themselves so strongly on this opinion and are so desperate to maintain it.
2) 6 weeks is not a long time. Plenty of people don’t find out their pregnant until 4-6 weeks, many later than that. You think it’s right that they can be forced to make that decision with only a few days to consider it? Or worse, that they have to leave the state to get one because they’re past 6 weeks? There are so many problems with this.
2) you wrote “you still get 6 weeks,” as if that’s adequate.
I’m sorry you think your brand of conservative politics is the party line, because frankly it isn’t and even you - who I disagree with - deserve to be represented by a party that shares your values. The GOP is the anti-abortion party. They will continue claw back any and every part of a woman’s right to choose until Roe v. Wade is functionally overturned, as they have done for decades. Whether or not that is the majority opinion is irrelevant because they are doing it anyway and your denial of that reality doesn’t make it go away. Much like most Americans don’t want weed illegal anymore but neither party seems interested in making a move at the federal level despite the public mandate.
Then how is it currently an enacted law that is also being copied in other GOP-controlled states?
https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-...
>Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wanted a starting job. No, he was rejected by NFL team owners because he became a financial liability, kneeling for social justice and igniting a telling firestorm with President Donald Trump.
You can sit here and argue all day about whether or not they’re within their rights to do it, and frankly I would probably agree with you. They are a business, they have to make business decisions. But to pretend it’s about his skill as a player is blatantly dishonest.
If you're on the margin performance-wise, and you are also carrying this controversial political baggage, then that baggage is likely going to be the tipping factor. The argument you have to convincingly make is that even without the baggage, Kaepernick would not be playing. That is why comparisons to players with similar performance records are relevant, not "silly."
As for lies, did you read the article I linked? A former NFL exec literally admits to it.
To get back to the original point, I don't know what to tell you. If you think cancelling is a tactic only implemented by the left, then there is a very thick layer of irony in your "one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side" line.
Have a good one man.
Of course there will be someone with a contrary opinion in almost every controversial issue. The key is to closely scrutinize the competing arguments based on the strength of the argument, the available data, and your moral compass, and make your judgment based on those. Personally, I am biased towards the positions that are based on the most intellectually-rigorous arguments supported by voluminous data; and I'd hope the type of people who frequent HN do the same, regardless of their political affiliation.
You should check this once a day and see the reality. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10/status/150666209988752998...
I'm done man. This is just a flamewar at this point.
They’re literally banning books in multiple states. But let me guess, “doesn’t count”?
It's by and large highly educated white people, attacking other highly educated white people.
Which looks a lot a cutthroat social status game among highly educated white people.
The cut throat cancel culture group can be divided into three categories. The people who use it as a tool for control, the people who embrace it as a form of group identity, and the well-meaning folks supporting the above two.
The group identity, dominance fighting group is probably the largest group. The well-meaning folk seem to either graduate up or wash out.
It also was always part of the internet that people pile up on others. What is new is that there are some groups that seem to get a direct endorsement for such behavior from the media landscape.
It was never about race, it was always about politics and power.
If you can shut down your political opponents under the guise of social justice all the better.
That's just the first half good advice. Don't be a jerk when you talk, don't be a jerk when you listen. Don't try to offend people unnecessarily, and don't be offended unnecessarily.
As soon as you decided that the only metric which matters is when someone is unnecessarily upset, offended, or whatever, everything was lost. In that case nobody can say anything.
I sort of agree, but not to the point where I think you can disregard the second half of the advice. For every person in the wild who is acting in bad faith, trolling, trying to be offensive, there is someone else on a hair trigger who takes offense to everything, who reads into every statement an underlying insult.
I'm in favor of correcting injustices, obviously. The problem is with the opportunists.
———-
Though in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take the person out for a beer. Then we can laugh at my expense together. I’ve never found being angry to be a long-term solution TBH. But that’s my experience.
It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have. Do you see how it would be different was a joke about something intrinsic and permanent that you've been hearing your whole life? And that instead of being good natured, it was being told by someone who would never share a beer with you?
> It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have.
Are traits ok to make fun of? And if I take an action and someone makes fun of it, is it not hurtful? I’m not trying to draw comparisons here, but I’m not sure you can generally invalidate the experiences of others either.
Comedy, and making fun of these things and each other is progress. When we let words make us fragile we give them power that they shouldn’t have. People all over the world are or can be mean because of ignorance. Why give them more power and leverage over you?
Also, statements like this come across as a justification for not even trying. I hope that's not what you intend.
I have a higher tolerance for things with a small group of friends than I do in the workplace. I will talk about religion, politics, get heated/passionate, etc. in a friend-context. I do NOT want that at work, and I think I am entitled to a workplace where people have to self-censor a bit in an effort to keep the peace. I do it every day around conservatives who get their feathers ruffled if I say something bad about the GOP/Trump, what makes them so special that they can talk about whatever they want whenever they want and expect NO social repercussions?
It's a one-way street with people who behave like that, we all know it. I guarantee you I can offend and get a bad reaction out of anyone who says "anything goes."
You don't agree people should leave Activision-Blizzard? I'm not convinced all the drama actually improved the company, though it was probably very satisfying to see for some folks.
> I do NOT want that at work, and I think I am entitled to [...]
That's a valid feeling, but nobody else is obliged to give that to you. You find a company that works for you, or you adapt to the one that you want to work for you. You don't go to war with the culture of a company just because something you feel entitled to isn't yet there.
> I guarantee you I can offend and get a bad reaction out of anyone who says "anything goes."
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with bad reactions. I literally said "you talk about it, rib back or leave". If you are incapable of solving your issues that way and find some sort of middle ground when someone really feels you stepped over the line, I think you have some growing up to do. That said, I recognise it doesn't mesh with a lot of folks' feelings on the matter and that's fine. I can live with that. I hope you can too.
I think it's reasonable to have conversations like these at work. Just like you can have them anywhere else. If conversations about it are had and you have thoughts on whether or not they should be had, you should be heard. Then the other party is free to do with that what they want. That's how life works.
No, I am entitled to that. I am there to do a job, not put up with someone's ravings about politics or whatever. I am forced into a space with them 40+ hours a week, my choice to remove myself from their presence has been taken way from me.
It is the company's responsibility to not foster a hostile work environment or one where people are constantly uncomfortable. If I have a colleague constantly going off on political rants and/or interacting with me in a different (unprofessional) manner at work it is the company's problem as well.
Respectfully, I think with these paragraphs you've established that in this situation it's primarily your problem. The environment was there before you came around and clearly it worked well enough to keep things afloat, so unless you are the one person on earth with the skills you have it is not the company's problem.
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/hostile-work-environmen...
The problem is that the NYT here managed to articulate a different, and stupid, problem: the eroding of our supposed right to speak without shame or shunning. The NYT's arguments are in a line of similar arguments that are not in fact about free speech, but rather the opposite: they purport to defend speech, but only selectively, and in the cases they don't defend, they're an appeal to shut down speech and voluntary association.
Wait, what? No he doesn't. "Free speech" isn't in the quote you pulled from, nor was it in the quote that Ken was responding to. The Times started by saying that there was a "fundamental right" to speak your mind without fear of reprisal. That's pure hogwash.
As I understand the history of the United States, I can't recall a single time where the cultural environment you've described existed. It might be an ideal, but we've never even been close to it. There's always been public backlash for unpopular opinions.
But again, we're getting distracted from the larger point, which is that was a _horrible_ piece by The Times.
I question, however, if there's been as much societal change between the internet wild west days we all miss and the current day. Sure, you could write a ten page screed on how much you hate those evil left-handed people and think they should all be put into death camps, but you weren't doing it under your own name and your next-door neighbor wasn't reading it. It's only when people insist on linking their online persona with their real-life persona that they have problems. That is what I think changed. Not the way people respond to speech but peoples' propensity for making that speech under their real name.
Second, I think you're missing what Ken called the "First Speaker Problem" (which IMHO is one of the most important parts of Ken's thinking)
> "We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work"
The implication I'm hearing in those word is that the "first speaker" shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work for their speech; what I'm not hearing (although your literal words would cover this situation, so maybe I'm mishearing) is consideration into if the joke (or other statement) thrusts someone else into a struggle session at work.
IMHO, to re-use your words; it isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand - whatever principles you want to apply to the responders to the apparent "First Speaker" should also be applied to the "First Speaker" as if they are themselves a responder. (If only because, I'd argue, they are meaningfully actually a responder themselves)
Ken talks about it in depth. Is there a part in there where he loses you? (by which I mean: a part where you're understanding it, and then in the next part you're not). I might be able to help you get your head around it.
Nobody is trying to get responders to shut up. They're trying to stop responders from shutting up the initiators. The distinction between the two is that the latter is usually qualitatively escalatory.
Alice makes a joke on Twitter, but rather than respond on Twitter Bob calls her employer. Alice schedules a talk at a university, but rather than scheduling a rebuttal Bob calls the university demanding to cancel the talk. Alice writes an op-ed, Bob publishes her address.
Both are speech, but a cultural norm of escalation makes the culture a pretty awful place to live.
FSP isn't an abstraction, it's a named bug.
Everything else you're saying is just Ken's point about proportionate response.
This is the cortisone rush that tptacek was referring to. You need to let it go through you (or past you) until you feel your mental gears loosen up again. Then step back and look at the bigger picture.
What the editorial author meant was not some kind of absolute freedom from the threat of being shamed or shunned. But that, once upon a time, and it wasn't too long ago, there was a thing known as "civil discourse" in this country. In which (and granted the boundaries are fuzzy hear) -- in itself the mere fact of having an unpopular (or difficult) opinion on the state of the world ... did not run such an alarmingly and dysfunctional risk of getting you shut down in form or another as it does today.
Note that this don't mean "unpopular or difficult" in the anything-goes sense. Spouting sheer idiocy can (and should) get you shunned and shamed, along with threats of implications of violence, and a whole lot of other things I don't need to mention.
But taking unpopular / difficult (or even simply naïve) stances within the boundaries of plausibility and reason, by themselves, should not merit such a reaction. And yet increasingly they do. That is what is meant by a breakdown in the standards of civil discourse. And it this breakdown of standards -- and the creeping climate of "better hold your tongue" that has taken over this country -- that is the main concern of the editorial piece. Not absolutist notions of freedom or freedom-from.
Nuance. That's the key takeaway here.
But doesn't this cut both ways? Once upon a time it wasn't possible to spout whatever's in one's head to countless people at once. The surface area is much larger today, and so are the consequences.
I think among the action items that TFA suggests for discussion, another could be: "What happens in class stays in class." If a student needs to be called out for egregious behavior, that can be handled by the teacher.
Also, things like electronically submitted essays and papers need to be deleted from any kind of server or database once the class is finished.
This is where the modern world has an issue. The window of what is considered beyond the pale has grown quite a big larger than it was in the past. In the old days you would never hear the President of the US repeating obviously fabricated insane conspiracy theories.
Nonsense. I was born into a world where being gay was beyond the pale. My parents were born into a world where interracial marriage was beyond the pale, and advocating for integration in some states could get you shot. For most of my grandparents lives it was literally a crime to be a socialist, or to hand out leaflets opposing WW1. When my parents were children the state was busy arresting people for distributing information about birth control, and beating up anti-war protesters. There was a government agency that controlled “decency” in media. When I was growing up people lost careers over protesting the Iraq War. Jon Stewart lost his first hosting job after Marilyn Manson burned a bible on set, and Sinead O’Connor got death threats for (correctly) accusing the pope of covering up child sexual abuse on SNL.
We are not a perfect country, there is always room for improvement. But the idea that the range of “cancelable” acts is wider than it used to be is absolute nonsense. We have way more free speech now than we’ve ever had in our past, its not even close.
You must be a youngster because yeah, that did happened in the old days.
I'd say it's worse than that. Our information diets are so heterogeneous, that with respect to certain topics, it's plausible that two people might have non-overlapping windows of what they consider reasonable/plausible, and of what they consider totally bat-shit insane. e.g., your uncle's views on climate change fall into your bat-shit insane window, and your views on climate change fall into your uncle's bat-shit insane window.
This is so disconnected with history its almost delusional. Go read about how civil rights advocates were treated in the south, or gay rights advocates a mere 30 years ago. Go read about how distributing information on birth control was a crime, or how being a socialist brought the state down on you. Go read about the labor movement before WW2, and how many workers and would be reformers were shot for their words.
For a decent chunk of the 20th century, straying outside the bounds of “civil discourse” wouldn’t get you “shut down”, it might get you killed or jailed.
And yet nobody ever produces any evidence that that’s actually true. This is particularly troubling when people are asserting that something ought to be done culturally or legislatively, when all they’ve got is a vague feeling that things are getting worse.
Such observations seem to be completely disjoint from the rapid widening of the overton window that’s happened since the advent of the “alt-right” and to the lesser extent the dirtbag left. I cannot square the evidence free assertion that people feel less free to speak their minds with nazi marches in major cities chanting about jews, and tucker carlson talking about white replacement theory on prime time television. These two things are fundamentally incompatible.
Are we in a worse place than the darkest decades of the 20th century? Or even half as bad of place? Of course not. That doesn't that the current climate hasn't deteriorated substantially over the last 15 years or so. Or that some aspects of it aren't reminiscent of the darker times that you are referencing.
I listed examples from the 1990s though, not just the 1930s. The moral panics of the 1980s and 1990s provides a ripe set of examples, if you’re interested in more.
There is also the radical change that social media and the internet has brought since the 1990s. And one of the great advents that things like Twitter has brought is the ability to get an audience and to speak anonymously if one so wishes. This has been an incredible boon to free speech, and it’s kind of frustrating that people aren’t treating it like the miracle that it is.
> Are we in a worse place than the darkest decades of the 20th century? Or even half as bad of place? Of course not. That doesn't that the current climate hasn't deteriorated substantially over the last 15 years or so. Or that some aspects of it aren't reminiscent of the darker times that you are referencing.
How, precisely are we worse off than the 1990s? Be specific, please. All these arguments break down to hand waving over how free speech has broken down, and yet nobody ever provides any evidence, only vague assertions and feelings.
Mean while I personally see the alt right out chanting things that were unthinkable in the 1990s. It is very hard for me to square the idea that free speech is worse off with the alt right openly saying racist and bigoted things.
Unfortunately you weren't very civil in your initial response, a few levels above. And it takes time to provide even a cursory list of examples you are asking for. Meanwhile there is an active genocide operation happening in a part of the world I have some close connections to. And a day job that I theoretically need to tend to, as well.
So I just don't have time to help you out here.
This is such an outstanding term. Sometimes I’ll see a comment of someone arguing with me or insulting me and I’ll get a spike of anger and literally feel my eyes twitch for a split second and I’ve never really thought about it but that’s exactly what it is.
If we kept the arguments to "It is wrong to hate people just for holding the same opinion as 50% of the population", or "Hating someone for making a joke is wrong", it would make a lot more sense.
You know, the more I think about it, the fact that there are a large body of people who literally hate and want to destroy the lives of half the people living in the western world, simply because of their opinions about life, really rubs in how psychotically dangerous they are. It is amazing they are allowed to get away with their behavior. The reason is that people really are instinctively terrified of a ravenous mob (and rightly so), so they keep quite, but, in the age of the internet, there is less to fear from these mobs.
The worst part, of course, is that 'large body' is pretty close to 100%. It's mutually assured destruction, and working.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't be able to shame or shun (the NYT itself would be my preferred target). I think the idea is that we should aspire to resolving our differences through dialog. What we have now is a crowd of people who feel that dialog is no longer necessary, and that to even simply engage in dialog with one's political enemies is bad and might somehow taint you.
But this isn't a new thing, not even a little bit. The House Unamerican Committee, and anti-abolitionists (as in slavery) are both examples of exactly this from history. Arguably, worse and more extreme because of all the, you know, death and murder.
I am simply stating the ideal, and how the present state of affairs differs from that ideal. I would also add that we are the downslope from a relatively high-water mark period of free speech, and I see no value in regressing in the manner we have.
Thing is, I'm not sure that's true. When do you think that high-water mark was?
@dang: was this a mistakenly flagged post? I don't think what I said was off topic or objectionable...to anyone, really.
> Records show just one Goldman employee, a financial adviser in the wealth management division, has donated to Mr. Trump — $534.58, to be precise.
The Times also did some research on him and found he was selling MAGA style hats. Running a side hustle while working at GS is a big no-no and it got him fired.
Can we all agree that whatever the hell that is is wrong? One of the largest newspapers in the world combing through public donations, finding a private individual that happened to donate a small amount to a politician that would go on to win the presidency, and feel the need to name that person publicly.
Or if you're more sympathetic to the other side, how about the woman that gave Trump the middle finger? She lost her job as a government contractor, but she won political office off of the debaucle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/nyregion/donald-trump-nyc...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/06/juli-briskma...
If you need a law to adhere to the principle which is often reduced to government, you are not a proponent of freedom of speech. That is an position you can take, but you should not have any further illusion about that.
The editorial is using it in the sense when someone says “i have the right to not have my house egged by teens”. It’s more the a reference to the ideal world than some right codified in the Constitution.
The blog just gets weird:
> It’s good that the Times is worried about speech-suppressing laws promoted by some conservatives, but it’s terrible that the Times is gullibly accepting the Right’s deeply dishonest assertion that it doesn’t engage in the sort of behavior it calls “cancel culture.” There is no serious argument that conservatives refrain from “cancel culture.”
Which part of the following quote from the op-ed claims that conservatives "refrain from cancel culture"?
> How has this happened? In large part, it’s because the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.
None of it! It says that conservatives have taken cancel culture further.
The author is worried that agreeing that cancel culture is a problem will help the right. But he does agree, so he does his agreeing in a roundabout way while heaping scorn on the op-ed. The overall effect is unpleasant.
I don't think you've very effectively rebutted his argument here.
If I was going to disagree with the blog, it would be over this strange idea that we should only talk about specific cancel culture incidents and never about the principle of free speech. Why not both?
> I believe that “cancel culture” exists — that is, I believe that some responses to speech are disproportionate and outside norms of decency, and I think the culture sometimes encourages such responses.
He's criticizing how the editorial talks about the problem. I agree with the spirit of the blog and the op-ed. I'm criticizing how the blog talks about the op-ed.
NYT would prefer:
"I slightly disapprove, err--- I mean I very very very mildly approve of what you say, and I will defend to the death your right to say it, while also acknowledging that I must be respectful to you in all that I say regarding what you said."
(Here in British Columbia, Canada, a Jewish lawyer famously defended a holocaust denier's right to free speech (pro-bono!). I remember the lawyer telling people that he planned to be the first to piss on his client's grave, but that he also intended to defend him in the courts to the very best of his abilities.)
Shaming and shunning can easily be considered harassment in the right context, though actually proving it in a court of law gets much trickier.
* If you say that vanilla ice cream is boring, and I respond by getting 10,000 Twitter users to email your CEO saying they'll boycott your company until you're fired, that's at least colloquially harassment and completely unacceptable behavior.
* If you go on a 10 minute rant about how much my political and religious views suck, and I respond by uninviting you from my birthday party, that's a reasonable response and not harassment at all.
So to meaningfully address the issue of "cancel culture", which the NYT and Popehat both agree is real, we really have to talk about what is and isn't the right context or we won't be able to get anywhere.
So decidedly no; you are not granted a freedom from shaming and shunning for your opinion, not in American culture, not in Western or Eastern culture, not historically, not in any religion, nowhere has this concept been held up as a societal more. The concept literally does not exist, and yet here the NYT cites it as some cultural artifact like it's been a cornerstone of American society from the beginning.
And what's provable in a court of law is completely immaterial to this discussion, not sure why you'd bring that up. The NYT was not citing the First Amendment, and in fact directly says so later on in the editorial.
See also "bullying".
Please specify which components are necessary and where the difference lies.
Shunning is never harassment. Shaming could be, but not on its own -- it would probably have to be either extraordinarily sustained/egregious and/or paired with credible threats to person or property.
Even emergent behavior that has the same effect as blatant harassment isn't harassment. I.e., sending one person 10K letters, some of which contain (even unspecific) threats, is CERTAINLY harassment. But if 10K people each send one letter, there are probably zero instances of harassment unless one of the letters is seriously egregious (e.g., contains specific and credible threats). And even then, the other 99,999 letters aren't instances of harassment.
Organized behavior might be. It depends on the amount of coordination. But probably the case is too difficult to take on.
What definition of harassment are you using, and what 1A case are you thinking shows it to be unprotected speech?
We cannot control the statistical distribution of opinions within the population and hence cannot control whether we will be shunned or shamed. However, that does not mean that we throw up our hands and define "repulsive" to be whatever gets us shunned by the majority: neither truth nor morality is completely relative.
The two propositions I gave differ markedly in the degree to which they should be controversial to a kind rational mind:
(1) That ceteris paribus two humans who differ only in their ethnicity should be accorded the same rights, a kind rational mind will always agree with.
(2) That a man who decided recently to try to become a woman is not a woman in exactly the same sense as a standard biological woman is something that most kind rational minds will agree with, but some still perhaps might not.
I'm sure you're not suggesting that either of those propositions is repulsive in any absolute sense. What I am saying is that in order to maintain standards in society, rather than letting those standards drift with cultural fashions and whims, all those who write and speak with the aim of maintaining a healthy culture should state clearly that proposition (2) is not repulsive or deserving of shame.
As a teen in the 80s, I was a conservative on a debate team full of liberals, including members of the Young Communists. Guess what- we were all good friends despite being ideologically at odds.
Having room to rationally discuss our differences makes for an ability for a pluralistic society to have open debate without rancor and violence. Using well formed argument rather than vitriol and public shaming to truly convince rather than force public agreement and private grievance seems to me a better recipe for a harmonious and just society.
In fact, this conversation has inspired me. I interview for SWE positions. It's time to stand up against these people. I will argue against hiring anyone whom I suspect would engage in shunning/shaming someone for failing to fall into line with progressive dogma; I'll find excuses for making the argument on technical grounds.
I... don't think you do, actually. I would argue that you should be able to start a conversation about the differences between trans women and cis women without that fear, but that's a) rather different than "pointing out" and b) highly dependent on how you go about that (and c), not a right, legally or morally).
It's akin to me going "your comment shows you to be an asshole" and me going "hey I'd like to talk to you about how you said that so you can say it without pissing people off."
We can continue to talk about Cancel Culture, but the opening assertion of the editorial was that we have a right to, "...speak [our] minds and voice [our] opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned." That's gobsmackingly wrong.
It's the kind of sentence that, to me at least, grinds my mental gears to a halt. I just... I have a very hard time thinking generously about the author of that sentence.
I'm glad people like Ken exist, to put into words something more coherent than what I'd ever be able to create.