>Politically-correct witch-hunt is killing free speech
I have yet to see an example of this, even though people complain about it all the time. I've only seen it "kill" careers of people who consistently spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities. If someone could provide me an example of "PoliTicAllY COrRecT cuLtUrE" killing someone who doesn't fall into this criteria, I'd be happy to hear examples :)
What are your thoughts on this: “ David Shor, an analyst at Democratic polling firm Civis Analytics, tweeted a study that concluded, "race riots reduced Democratic vote share."
That study was probably accurate. Obviously, rioting alienates voters.
But the mob attacked Shor. "Come get your boy," one tweeted.
His bosses did. Even though Shor issued a groveling apology, he was fired.”
Definitions are important. Should we call it the Tulsa Massacre or the Tulsa Race Riot? And does the choice of term reflect your view?
2) Are there any race riots going on now? Which events are race riots and which are not?
My reading of the history of the topic is that "race riot" was the term used by whites to describe resistance by minorities to white oppression, as in the Tulsa example above.
The referenced paper uses the term "race riot" twice, both when referencing the works of other people.
Instead, it uses the description "black-led protests" and proposes that "nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights." which it juxtaposes with "Protester-initiated violence".
If we accept the narrative that the violence of many of the current protests are the results of state-initiated repression, then do those protests fall in the first category or the second? Or neither, in which case the study isn't relevant.
Note that if we use the definition of "Protester-initiated violence" then if we call it the Tulsa Race Riot then it's clearly a race riot initiated by white protestors. (One of many, I'll add.)
Is the implication that all black-lead protests with protester-initiated violence should be characterized as a "race riot"?
4) You write "rioting alienates voters".
Is that really true?
I assume that white-lead protests with protester-initiated violence against non-whites are also race riots. Do you agree?
Did the Tulsa Massacre/"Race Riot" alienate voters against the protesting whites? Did the Zoot Suit Riots alienate voters against Navy sailors?
I .. don't think they did. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite.
So I don't think your "obviously" is all that correct a summary.
5) How is the term "killing free speech" at all relevant?
Over and over I see "cancel culture" applied to famous or influential people who have a loss of prestige based on what they wrote or said, but who are NOT CANCELED in any meaningful sense. Eg, at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-cu... I read that "Shor is still consulting in Democratic politics, but he is no longer working for a firm that restricts his freedom to publicly opine."
ECA_stax pointed out the hyperbole in using the term "kill". How do you get from "still consulting in Democratic politics" to "killed", or from "must conform to an employer's policies" to "killing free speech"?
Sure you can. Cancelation has nothing to do with the amount of money you own, nor the color of your skin, your religious beliefs, nationality, gender identity, preferred pronouns, political lean or ice cream preferences.
Example: my life. My sister is woke: I can't really say what I think around her. Lots of my "friends" are woke: can't really talk to them.
And mind you, my opinions aren't like of that guy who worked at Google and wrote "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" or whatever that guy wrote. That's not my style of thinking.
But my style of thinking is definitely not "woke" and therefore many of my thoughts would easily be categorized as hate speech or something by woke people.
My vibe is the people who keep saying free speech these days isn't a problem are the same people who demand you only speak their orthodoxy. Always has, always will be.
Sounds like you're pigeonholing Damore (of Google Memo fame) the same way that you don't want to be. You should read the original memo, and not an opinionated summary of it, it's not long. You may find that you were sold a lie about it.
I've read the 10 page memo several times. I strongly disagree with his central ideas. However, I see them as political thoughts. Political thoughts I strongly disagree with. And the way I look at it, he was fired because of two things.
1) He had right wing political ideas which most people at Google strongly disagree with.
2) He wrote them down in a shared work forum.
I've read second hand accounts of many unusual ideas which have been shared on internal Google forums. I agree with lots. I also disagree with lots, both left and right.
But it was only the guy on the right who got fired. I'm not aware of anyone ever getting fired from Google for expressing far left political ideas. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.
It's 2020. Today's lesson is that if I have an idea out of the accepted mainstream of my company, and they are on the right, then keep my mouth shut, or I'll be fired. If the idea is on the left, I can go ahead and share my thoughts.
This week in Seattle, a popular weatherman on local NPR radio was fired for a post on his personal blog, where he criticized violent rioters and compared the chilling effects of their targeted property damage to historical examples, such as Kristallnacht.
He has no record of "hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities" and the post itself did not contain such either.
fwiw a quick googling of this guy shows that he’s had his weather segments cancelled before on other networks, and by his own admission it’s because he veers off topic from weather and into controversy (E.g. climate change denial)
People weren’t being deliberately destroyed at the early stages when Kristallnacht occurred either. I believe that’s the reasoning behind why prominent activists and lawmakers (rightly or wrongly) compared federal actions in Portland to the Nazi Gestapo and such a comparison wasn’t seen as offensive and they weren’t cancelled. The idea of recognizing warning signs.
For the record, I’m Jewish and don’t see such comparisons as offensive. It’s good to try to learn from historical similarities, however faint.
Abusing the word 'offensive' by applying it to expressions you happen to disagree with is a significant part of the problem. While you might not agree with the comparison to Kristallnacht that does not mean he caused you to be upset or hurt your feelings - which is the dictionary definition of the non-military meaning of the word offensive. He just said something you don't agree with, something which is bound to happen in a free society where free speech is the norm.
The way the word offensive is used here is offensive in the military way since it is meant as an attack which is supposed to silence the person who spoke those words.
Free speech should be defended not for those people you agree with but for those you disagree with.
Didn't say killing someone, said free speech. Girl was killed by blm because she said all lives matter. That is her right to say you don't get to decide what's right or wrong, hence free speech
The article gives examples and links to other articles with more examples.
Among other I see it mentions JK Rowling and Bret Weinstein. I don't know enough about this to opine on what they've said, but would you categorize them as people who "constantly spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities"?
When it comes to JK Rowling, absolutely. She's pretty firmly in TERF territory, and holds pretty damaging views when it comes to those of us who are trans/gender non-conforming.
She isn’t “hateful” because she disagrees. Is she not allowed to have an opinion that challenges the orthodoxy? People mix up “hate” with “opinion.” Disagreeing with something isn’t hating people.
I literally don't believe you can honestly not be aware of examples. To the extent that I suspect you posted this in order to gather all the low hanging fruit. Fair enough!
It's easy and lazy to attack the parent like this. I generally agree with them. I feel like the number of cases of "unjustly canceled" are extremely few - perhaps zero to two (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I recall feeling that way). There are of course many I'd consider arguable, however. The point is, your attack is unreasonable.
Just the day to day life of being a white male tech worker in the bay area? This is definitely not an area where alternative views are welcomed, it is either conform or be ostracized.
If the J.K. Rowling thing came up in a group setting, and you stated one of the central points of this article: that there are biological differences between the sexes, people would slowly back away from you. People who have known you for a long time would throw you to the wolves rather than get taken along with you. Is that your idea of free speech?
Former Carnegie Mellon student here. A couple students had a private argument over chat (facebook messenger) in which one student said some things that were not politically correct. The other student screenshot-ed the messages and posted them in the largest facebook group, with over 10k members. The post was heavily upvoted, and the student who made the non-politically correct comments received death threats and hundreds of angry messages. The student wrote a long apology to the community for their behavior and a planned "re-education" program they were undertaking to be better educated.
I once almost got killed joking that LGBTQIAA2S+ looks more like a password than an initialism ...
But I don't really care personally about any specific words so that is not where I see the problem.
What I'm worried about is when entire topics become taboo and impossible to discuss. I don't think this is specific to "PC culture", its just different topics that get avoided than in other in-groups.
As an example, During the "European refugee crisis", even as a leftist, in favor of letting the people in, it has been neigh impossible to discuss any potential problems without getting called or at least suspected a Nazi or similar.
The NY Times hires Sarah Jeong while Roseanne Barr gets fired.
Sarah Jeong repeatedly made offensive and racist comments on her Twitter — unapologetically, while Roseanne triggered a national conniption fit.
And what the heck is LGBTQIAA2S+? We have initialed and labeled and divided people so much with this hyper-woke activism that civil rights activism has become a caricature. It’s like the whole world has gone full-blown Portlandia. And the whole crowd has gone so extreme that even disagreeing on economic theory gets you labeled an -ist.
JK Rowling was the target of cancellation after she expressed her opinion on sexuality. People literally can’t disagree anymore. Either toe the line, or get butchered by the Twitterari. JK Rowling isn’t even a conservative or even remotely right wing, but she is apparently not entitled to an opinion unless it’s perfectly in line. Ricky Gervais is another person that’s is constantly in hot water. He got tarred and feathered for daring to make a Bruce Jenner joke. Any disagreement or even harmless misstep results in outrage. Calm the f down people.
You literally can’t have a disagreement with anything “on the left” without facing the rapid wrath of the professionally offended. Even standup comics, where offending literally everyone is their job get “cancelled” because people can’t even laugh anymore. It must be a miserable life to be perpetually offended.
Interestingly, it’s ok and even encouraged to make fun of or spout hatred against “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” Christians, and in many circles, Jewish people. But make fun of a LGBTQIAA2S+ vegan Saudi woman and all hell will break lose.
It’s like Thought Police are real. Don’t like something being said? Then say your own thing. Or turn the damned channel. There is a reason many stand up comedians avoid college campuses these days; everyone is so delicate and offended that comedy is essentially a dead art.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o
I am not condoning “hate,” but “hate” has become a synonym with “disagree” or “doesn’t support.” If someone doesn’t like Obama, they are immediately a “racist,” but if someone doesn’t like Clarence Thomas, then suddenly it’s about “ideas” and not race. People that criticized Condi Rice weren’t called mysogynist, but criticize Hillary Clinton and you apparently “hate women.” Supporting Bret Kavanaugh makes you a woman hater, but supporting Bill Clinton gets a pass. And it’s because of politics, not any particular social enlightenment. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Biden should be cancelled after his recent claim that “Latinos are diverse, unlike the African-American community.” He really said that. Incredibly racist. Yet aside from some right wing ramblings, that comment has been ignored by the very people so readily looking to cancel people.
It’s a fact that the left is far more tolerated and protected while anyone who dares disagree is sent to the woodshed. As much as I detest Amy Schumer, I’m not calling for her to be banished, nor do I form noble sounding organizations dedicated to getting her “cancelled.” Organizations like Media Matters have made it their mission to cultivate outrage and attempt to sanitize any thoughts that might bruise their delicate sensibilities.
What a miserable time in which we live. When comics are fearful of playing a university, then you know we’ve done some serious shark jumping. Berkeley used to be a center of contrarian thought and free speech, but not it’s positively East German in their level of tolerance of dissenting opinions.
I've seen longer versions of the same in use like LGGBDTTTIQQAAP, this is used for some 'inclusiveness training' by the Canadian Elementary Teachers Federation (ETFO) of Ontario, it supposedly stands for Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and Polyamorous.
Wouldn't it be better to have a word that describes the person as 'other than majority' rather than a really long acronym? Similarly as we use the word foreigner instead of listing every possible nationality.
Of course it would, the way these terms are being made up and expanded is self-defeating. From hispanic to latino to latinx, from homosexual to gay and lesbian to lesbian and gay to (too many words, let's use an acronym) LGB to LGBT to LGBTQ to half the alphabet plus some interpunction - I've heard the term 'alphabet people' being bandied around. This is a natural outcome of intersectionality, everyone will want to see his group represented in the terminology. It resembles the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the PFJ (People's Front of Judea) confess their hatred of the JPF, the other JPF, the JPPF and then some.
please don't ever assume bad faith on this site. I'm from Canada, so the 2S throws off a lot of Americans. 2S is two-spirited and comes from Indigenous culture.
How about the median American who got fired from his job for cracking his knuckles, while driving the company can? A passerby thought the guy was flashing the white power hand signal.
The parent didn't say anything remotely approaching witch hunting, and you're calling them "a bad person"? This seems like a wild jump to express some very explicit anger.
I think the mindset that "one off-color joke on social media leads to condemning a person entirely", as in the article, is the same mindset as "one off-color reference to a definition makes an article lose all credibility", and is toxic in either case. I see comments like this all the time on HN and it seems so unfair: the article says a lot of things that aren't affected in the slightest by whether she linked to PragerU.
My intent was to say that PragerU is partisan propaganda, not a source for definition.
At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that).
I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming.
So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.
This is like trying to point out hypocrisy when someone calls for a restriction on falsely yelling fire in a crowded building. Some speech acts are incompatible with the ideal of free speech, and should be called out as such.
Yelling fire in a theater has never been a problem, it was only a metaphor used to defend the ridiculous supreme court decision that handing out flyers opposing the draft during World War I was an immediate threat to life and should therefore be banned.
No one ever called for bans on yelling fire in crowded places. The US government called for bans on distributing pamphlets that went against their first attempts at imperialism.
Do you eat eggs? If so, how would you feel about a mob of vegans publicly demanding that you be fired from your job, or otherwise cancelling you because your beliefs are not far enough to the left?
Whether others' behavior is 'right' or not is one moral question, but how you react to it is an independent one, and there's no good outcome from vitriol. Among other things is drives those on the other side of it to 'raise arms' in response, leading to an all-out culture war, and I'm pretty sure it's what got Trump selected.
There's some relief in the knowledge that it's way more prevalent on the internet than in real life, and most people just don't care that much. But the people most vocal on social media are also those most polarized so it _seems_ way more common than it is, which in turn sucks more people into it because they don't know otherwise.
> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro LGBTQ rights, pro environmental issues, pro free speech, and anti-racism.
To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican.
She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond what was already fought and won before she became politically aware.
For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing. Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.
lmao just marvelling at how blissfully rich and ignorant you have to be to not understand why some people might be mad at you for talking about gentrification as a good thing.
I don't believe she's talking about gentrification as a good thing, just using it as a metric. For example, on a lower income, I wouldn't choose to look in a highly gentrified area for housing, because rent prices may be unaffordable and come with a lot of amenities I don't need. Food/restaurant prices may also be unaffordable. Personally, I have chosen to live in more and less gentrified areas based on how much money I was able to/comfortable spending on rent. At an extreme end of the spectrum, most of us may not live in Beverly Hills, CA, or own a condo in midtown Manhattan, and it's informative to say those areas are extremely gentrified and un-affordable.
There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information.
Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.
She said one 'hood was better than the other and the only metric she cited was 'gentrification'. Do you figure she was saying the gentrification was a bad thing?
Gentrification is an incredibly political third rail. Either she's dumb, oblivious or she knew what she was saying. In the latter two cases she can't claim to be upset at the outcry.
It sounds like she's both socially and fiscally liberal, but doesn't identify with the mechanisms at play in the liberal sphere because they threaten individuals. In many states in the US, socially liberal policies like abortion, gay rights, etc, etc are heavily blocked and contested, so I don't agree with your characterization of these as mainstream. I agree they are mainstream among liberal Americans.
My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet drove her to release an apology.
Yeah they're mainstream if she's liberal. You don't get a cookie for not being a bigot if you're a democrat.
re: gentrification example, she was explicitly saying that she preferred one hood over the other, and the sole attribute she gave to the hood was the heavily loaded term gentrification. Easily could be understood that she was implicitly approving.
Her not understanding how directly harmful gentrification is to working class people and BIPOC, and being distraught at the reaction. Wild. I have no sympathy honestly.
Have any sort of tact and THINK.
I don't really have any sympathy for people who are concerned at the threat of being "cancelled" when are they are so oblivious, uncaring and blind to others in their community and the world.
You lost me when you went on a diatribe about socialism, as if the modern democratic socialist movement in the US, for e.g., has a lot in common with Stalin's USSR, which was a totalitarian, authoritarian state.
Stalin's USSR did not start as a totalitarian, authoritarian state. The revolution started with several 'socialist'-related factions who claimed to want to improve the lot of the oppressed. It was after the Bolsheviks took over when things rapidly went downhill.
Do you think the same can not happen elsewhere?
For the rest the more apt comparison is between the radical left in the USA and Maoist China, complete with struggle sessions. No person so virtuous or someone will find something, anything for which that person will be made to apologise. Once the apology - and with that the confession of guilt - is in that person can be cancelled at any time, just like in Mao's China.
Also note the following, supposedly said by cardinal Richelieu: Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre which translates to If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.. This is not a new concept, the difference between Richelieu's France and Mao's China is that the accusers are not (yet) in power.
I have to aggree with a lot of statements made in the post. Both left and right have become more extreme defending their views, calling out 'offenders'.
Here's a small sample from across the ocean. We used to have legal and illegal immigrants in Slovenia. Most countries still do. But since leftist media found illegal to be a non-correct word they simply started using another one (prebežniki - could be translated as runaways). This in a way signifies their humanity but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?
I guess the left/right zeal is a response to politics ignoring those opinions and it's likely to get much worse until either side gets some changes into motion.
> but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?
Certain leftists–typically the loud ones–throw away the notion of international borders and private land ownership. With this in mind, the idea to them that any one person is anywhere illegally is offensive.
i can't speak for the situation in Slovenia - speaking from an US standpoint - 'illegal immigrant' puts the focus on the immigrant who is generally escaping one crappy situation for a better opportunity and generally doing the shit-work nobody else wants to do - the person is not illegal, they are undocumented (which is a misdemeanor offense in the US and generally means being deported) - our food production systems depend on these workers and those companies and this government do not want to be honest about that - notice that the employer is rarely if ever punished for knowingly hiring undocumented workers (like the US president for example) - by focusing on illegality it obscures the humanity of the person and paints the situation with a broad-brush that then allows US racists to extend this to anyone who is not white (we hear many stories from people of color of being told to 'go home' even though they were born here)
so maybe this clarifies a little while immigration may not be the best case for talking about 'politically-correct speech'?
i highly recommend Ai Wei Wei's documentary on refugees and migration, Human Flow
67 comments
[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadI have yet to see an example of this, even though people complain about it all the time. I've only seen it "kill" careers of people who consistently spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities. If someone could provide me an example of "PoliTicAllY COrRecT cuLtUrE" killing someone who doesn't fall into this criteria, I'd be happy to hear examples :)
That study was probably accurate. Obviously, rioting alienates voters.
But the mob attacked Shor. "Come get your boy," one tweeted.
His bosses did. Even though Shor issued a groveling apology, he was fired.”
1) What is a "race riot"?
Definitions are important. Should we call it the Tulsa Massacre or the Tulsa Race Riot? And does the choice of term reflect your view?
2) Are there any race riots going on now? Which events are race riots and which are not?
My reading of the history of the topic is that "race riot" was the term used by whites to describe resistance by minorities to white oppression, as in the Tulsa example above.
3) Why did Shor decide to characterize the linked-to paper http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf as providing information on "race riot"s?
The referenced paper uses the term "race riot" twice, both when referencing the works of other people.
Instead, it uses the description "black-led protests" and proposes that "nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights." which it juxtaposes with "Protester-initiated violence".
If we accept the narrative that the violence of many of the current protests are the results of state-initiated repression, then do those protests fall in the first category or the second? Or neither, in which case the study isn't relevant.
Note that if we use the definition of "Protester-initiated violence" then if we call it the Tulsa Race Riot then it's clearly a race riot initiated by white protestors. (One of many, I'll add.)
Is the implication that all black-lead protests with protester-initiated violence should be characterized as a "race riot"?
4) You write "rioting alienates voters".
Is that really true?
I assume that white-lead protests with protester-initiated violence against non-whites are also race riots. Do you agree?
Did the Tulsa Massacre/"Race Riot" alienate voters against the protesting whites? Did the Zoot Suit Riots alienate voters against Navy sailors?
I .. don't think they did. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite.
So I don't think your "obviously" is all that correct a summary.
5) How is the term "killing free speech" at all relevant?
Over and over I see "cancel culture" applied to famous or influential people who have a loss of prestige based on what they wrote or said, but who are NOT CANCELED in any meaningful sense. Eg, at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-cu... I read that "Shor is still consulting in Democratic politics, but he is no longer working for a firm that restricts his freedom to publicly opine."
ECA_stax pointed out the hyperbole in using the term "kill". How do you get from "still consulting in Democratic politics" to "killed", or from "must conform to an employer's policies" to "killing free speech"?
Even if she is never allowed to write a book again, never invited on Oprah again, she has $1B dollars, which is more than any of us will ever see.
And mind you, my opinions aren't like of that guy who worked at Google and wrote "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" or whatever that guy wrote. That's not my style of thinking.
But my style of thinking is definitely not "woke" and therefore many of my thoughts would easily be categorized as hate speech or something by woke people.
My vibe is the people who keep saying free speech these days isn't a problem are the same people who demand you only speak their orthodoxy. Always has, always will be.
That is not what he said. Read the memo. That said I agree with the rest of your points.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
1) He had right wing political ideas which most people at Google strongly disagree with.
2) He wrote them down in a shared work forum.
I've read second hand accounts of many unusual ideas which have been shared on internal Google forums. I agree with lots. I also disagree with lots, both left and right.
But it was only the guy on the right who got fired. I'm not aware of anyone ever getting fired from Google for expressing far left political ideas. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.
It's 2020. Today's lesson is that if I have an idea out of the accepted mainstream of my company, and they are on the right, then keep my mouth shut, or I'll be fired. If the idea is on the left, I can go ahead and share my thoughts.
He has no record of "hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities" and the post itself did not contain such either.
The blog post in question: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-...
For the record, I’m Jewish and don’t see such comparisons as offensive. It’s good to try to learn from historical similarities, however faint.
The way the word offensive is used here is offensive in the military way since it is meant as an attack which is supposed to silence the person who spoke those words.
Free speech should be defended not for those people you agree with but for those you disagree with.
Larry Summers is more controversial but same result.
Among other I see it mentions JK Rowling and Bret Weinstein. I don't know enough about this to opine on what they've said, but would you categorize them as people who "constantly spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities"?
If I would say my opinion is white people are inferior and violent, or Christians are primitive and a danger to society, would that not be hateful?
If the J.K. Rowling thing came up in a group setting, and you stated one of the central points of this article: that there are biological differences between the sexes, people would slowly back away from you. People who have known you for a long time would throw you to the wolves rather than get taken along with you. Is that your idea of free speech?
But I don't really care personally about any specific words so that is not where I see the problem.
What I'm worried about is when entire topics become taboo and impossible to discuss. I don't think this is specific to "PC culture", its just different topics that get avoided than in other in-groups.
As an example, During the "European refugee crisis", even as a leftist, in favor of letting the people in, it has been neigh impossible to discuss any potential problems without getting called or at least suspected a Nazi or similar.
Sarah Jeong repeatedly made offensive and racist comments on her Twitter — unapologetically, while Roseanne triggered a national conniption fit.
And what the heck is LGBTQIAA2S+? We have initialed and labeled and divided people so much with this hyper-woke activism that civil rights activism has become a caricature. It’s like the whole world has gone full-blown Portlandia. And the whole crowd has gone so extreme that even disagreeing on economic theory gets you labeled an -ist.
JK Rowling was the target of cancellation after she expressed her opinion on sexuality. People literally can’t disagree anymore. Either toe the line, or get butchered by the Twitterari. JK Rowling isn’t even a conservative or even remotely right wing, but she is apparently not entitled to an opinion unless it’s perfectly in line. Ricky Gervais is another person that’s is constantly in hot water. He got tarred and feathered for daring to make a Bruce Jenner joke. Any disagreement or even harmless misstep results in outrage. Calm the f down people.
You literally can’t have a disagreement with anything “on the left” without facing the rapid wrath of the professionally offended. Even standup comics, where offending literally everyone is their job get “cancelled” because people can’t even laugh anymore. It must be a miserable life to be perpetually offended.
Interestingly, it’s ok and even encouraged to make fun of or spout hatred against “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” Christians, and in many circles, Jewish people. But make fun of a LGBTQIAA2S+ vegan Saudi woman and all hell will break lose.
It’s like Thought Police are real. Don’t like something being said? Then say your own thing. Or turn the damned channel. There is a reason many stand up comedians avoid college campuses these days; everyone is so delicate and offended that comedy is essentially a dead art. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o
I am not condoning “hate,” but “hate” has become a synonym with “disagree” or “doesn’t support.” If someone doesn’t like Obama, they are immediately a “racist,” but if someone doesn’t like Clarence Thomas, then suddenly it’s about “ideas” and not race. People that criticized Condi Rice weren’t called mysogynist, but criticize Hillary Clinton and you apparently “hate women.” Supporting Bret Kavanaugh makes you a woman hater, but supporting Bill Clinton gets a pass. And it’s because of politics, not any particular social enlightenment. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Biden should be cancelled after his recent claim that “Latinos are diverse, unlike the African-American community.” He really said that. Incredibly racist. Yet aside from some right wing ramblings, that comment has been ignored by the very people so readily looking to cancel people.
It’s a fact that the left is far more tolerated and protected while anyone who dares disagree is sent to the woodshed. As much as I detest Amy Schumer, I’m not calling for her to be banished, nor do I form noble sounding organizations dedicated to getting her “cancelled.” Organizations like Media Matters have made it their mission to cultivate outrage and attempt to sanitize any thoughts that might bruise their delicate sensibilities.
What a miserable time in which we live. When comics are fearful of playing a university, then you know we’ve done some serious shark jumping. Berkeley used to be a center of contrarian thought and free speech, but not it’s positively East German in their level of tolerance of dissenting opinions.
Not sure if you're mocking the LGBT group or what? Is that a real thing now? Googling it gives me only a (seemingly) mocking Urban Dictionary entry.
https://queerevents.ca/events/toronto/social/2020-02-08/lgbt...
http://internationalstudentconnect.org/lgbtqiaa2s
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-46418045
etc.
I've seen longer versions of the same in use like LGGBDTTTIQQAAP, this is used for some 'inclusiveness training' by the Canadian Elementary Teachers Federation (ETFO) of Ontario, it supposedly stands for Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and Polyamorous.
I am European btw. This is the first time I heard about two-spiritedness.
Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not?
Free speech for me, not for thee?
It's legally allowed but bad for society and you're a bad person for participating.
At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that).
I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming.
So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.
No one ever called for bans on yelling fire in crowded places. The US government called for bans on distributing pamphlets that went against their first attempts at imperialism.
There's some relief in the knowledge that it's way more prevalent on the internet than in real life, and most people just don't care that much. But the people most vocal on social media are also those most polarized so it _seems_ way more common than it is, which in turn sucks more people into it because they don't know otherwise.
To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican.
She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond what was already fought and won before she became politically aware.
For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing. Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.
There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information.
Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.
Gentrification is an incredibly political third rail. Either she's dumb, oblivious or she knew what she was saying. In the latter two cases she can't claim to be upset at the outcry.
My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet drove her to release an apology.
re: gentrification example, she was explicitly saying that she preferred one hood over the other, and the sole attribute she gave to the hood was the heavily loaded term gentrification. Easily could be understood that she was implicitly approving.
Her not understanding how directly harmful gentrification is to working class people and BIPOC, and being distraught at the reaction. Wild. I have no sympathy honestly.
Have any sort of tact and THINK.
I don't really have any sympathy for people who are concerned at the threat of being "cancelled" when are they are so oblivious, uncaring and blind to others in their community and the world.
Your claim has crossed the line to a personal attack which should not be tolerated.
Please stick to discussing the issues instead of making personal attacks in the future.
Do you think the same can not happen elsewhere?
For the rest the more apt comparison is between the radical left in the USA and Maoist China, complete with struggle sessions. No person so virtuous or someone will find something, anything for which that person will be made to apologise. Once the apology - and with that the confession of guilt - is in that person can be cancelled at any time, just like in Mao's China.
Also note the following, supposedly said by cardinal Richelieu: Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre which translates to If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.. This is not a new concept, the difference between Richelieu's France and Mao's China is that the accusers are not (yet) in power.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready-for-the-struggle-sess...
Here's a small sample from across the ocean. We used to have legal and illegal immigrants in Slovenia. Most countries still do. But since leftist media found illegal to be a non-correct word they simply started using another one (prebežniki - could be translated as runaways). This in a way signifies their humanity but I ask myself what's wrong with calling a criminal a criminal?
I guess the left/right zeal is a response to politics ignoring those opinions and it's likely to get much worse until either side gets some changes into motion.
Certain leftists–typically the loud ones–throw away the notion of international borders and private land ownership. With this in mind, the idea to them that any one person is anywhere illegally is offensive.
so maybe this clarifies a little while immigration may not be the best case for talking about 'politically-correct speech'?
i highly recommend Ai Wei Wei's documentary on refugees and migration, Human Flow