Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

“Arts are going to be controversial. But when it’s put on the wall, one should say this is art. So there must be a policy on the campus,” Satish Tripathi, the university president, told the student newspaper in early November. yeah i'm not sure about this idea that just bc something is provocative therefore it's art. i do think art requires some level of self-identifying context to function.

Yeah, there's something about the lack of any context clues that doesn't help here. Otherwise you can get contrarian bro chucklefucks trying to frame douchey provoking vandalism as something else.

"oh i was only drawing this feces swastika to remind everyone that hate + discrimination are still happening"

p. sure defamiliarizing-everyday-life artworks outside of institutional contexts have been more or less official artworld practice for nigh on decades now

"outside of institutional contexts" does not really mean "can easily be confused as the work of a bigot" - i'm not saying it should be illegal obv just that i understand why ppl are upset. it's a thoughtless thing to do.

Actually, there was a Swedish 'artist' who's art consisted of hanging miniature swastikas up outside of the local synagogue, hanging posters up around town with named black people hanging from bridges, that kind of thing. He got jailed last year. Was a huge thing over here.

for some reason that kinda reminds me of this guy:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/charles-krafft-is-a-white-nationalist-who-believes-the-holocaust-is-a-deliberately-exaggerated-myth/Content?oid=15995245

for some reason that kinda reminds me of this guy:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/charles-krafft-is-a-white-nationalist-who-believes-the-holocaust-is-a-deliberately-exaggerated-myth/Content?oid=15995245

― Mordy, Tuesday, December 1, 2015 4:42 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh man, good lord.

it's too easy to make fun of the art world, but i just knew that the curator would say that this "raises larger issues" -- for curators, issues are always "raised," never resolved.

"raises larger issues" basically translates to "oh man, this is embarrassing"

that bothered me so much as an english lit undergrad. we were always raising issues in the novels but never doing anything with them! (idk what i wanted to be done - direct action? maybe there's nothing to do after raising an issue but nod sagely to one another)

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/argument-sexual-assault-race-harvard-law-school

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/i-was-denied-admission-to-a-phd-program-because-of-my-perceived-political-views-reflections-of-a-sellout-how-diversity-would-strengthen-social-science

http://www.thenation.com/article/speechbros-concern-trolls-and-the-free-speech-fraud/

by j. dark/clover (sometime of this parish?)

useful term, speechbro

When the fight actually comes to get cops off campus, to abolish the administration, destroy all student-loan records (soon, please!), do we really believe these battles will be won with “civility” and lip-service liberalism when the current, lesser fights cannot?

isn't this really the problem acc to the useful ally liberal "concern trolls"? that instead of fighting for material changes like getting cops off campus, abolishing the administration and destroying all student-loan records (the latter of which i support wholeheartedly even if i have no idea how exactly one goes about doing this) these students are fighting for safe spaces and against halloween costumes? speech is much easier to fight than actual entrenched interests (who themselves don't give a fuck about speech beyond its use as a cudgel).

I think the thing is the more stupid a protest the more attention it will get from the Establishment, if only to drive mainstream narrative that the status quo faces mostly frivolous challenges

I forsee much usage of the term 'speechbro' by me in 2016.

http://www.thenation.com/article/speechbros-concern-trolls-and-the-free-speech-fraud/

by j. dark/clover (sometime of this parish?)

useful term, speechbro

― j., Thursday, December 17, 2015 8:50 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i was mystified to see this article getting shat on by the same sector of left twitter that calls for material changes

i think it's fantastic

Clover is a Marxist iirc so probably doesn't share the liberal ideal of free speech

right but i'm seeing the snarky marxists criticize it!

Snarxists obv ffs

i reacted kinda negatively to that piece but i'd have to work to figure out why

maybe bc it stereotypes all free speech advocates as disingenuous white men trying to maintain the hegemony?

disingenuous white men trying to maintain the hegemony are pretty into "free speech" as a cause these days, u have to admit

it's pretty politically convenient to claim that chait or deboer are just trying to maintain the hegemony and don't really believe in the critiques they're making

"i believe there's a segment of the left that is trying to discredit + suppress opinions it disagrees with" "you're just trying to maintain the hegemony, shut up"

well i didn't have either of those guys in mind, speaking for myself

there's a line that runs from the 90s rightwing contrarianism of "tenured radicals" and "who stole feminism" to the post-obergefell panic of christian conservatives into darker territory, like racists and woman haters casting their ideas as "crimethink" in a culture locked down by progressivism

elements of the right thinking of themselves as oppressed, as rights campaigners, idk it's a thing

not that clover was addressing this directly, like i said i'd have to go back to that

the big issue seems to not be suppressed opinions but TOO MANY opinions

i feel like a lot of the criticism of the left re free speech would really make more sense in terms of the epistemic closure critique that was initially aimed at the right-wing.

maybe bc it stereotypes all free speech advocates as disingenuous white men trying to maintain the hegemony?

― Mordy, Monday, December 21, 2015 5:35 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes this is the line of thinking i'm seeing but it's so befuddling after seeing these same detractors deride "brocialism" et al as broad brushes to dispose of class critiques

all these brotiques and counterbrotiques are starting to get pretty brofusing for a bro

I don't even understand what a bro is, I thought it was fratty guys but it turns out it might just mean dorks

you like "free speech"? well, guess what: so does some gamer gate dude

yeah. fucked up speech is fucked up. the problem is how to delegitimize it.

you can try to do it through making rules or laws against it, but if the rules or laws are unenforceable then you've created an empty gesture that does nothing, while deceiving people into regarding the problem as solved.

if the rules or laws are enforceable but are enforced equitably, then you've just created a vehicle for inequality that can be used selectively by authority only against the speech they are most pleased to suppress.

if you dedicate the massive amount of time, money and force required to enforce the rules or laws against speech everywhere equally, then you've created the necessary structure for massively oppressive social institutions far beyond just suppressing illegitimate speech.

delegitimizing speech through relentlessly exposing its inherent lack of legitimacy may not eliminate illegitimate speech, but at least it avoids the other problems noted above.

enforceable but are enforced equitably

er, not enforced equitably

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/20/oberlin-students-cafeteria-food-is-racist.html

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/himym/images/3/3b/DoctorX.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121128205554

bro used to mean douchey man but i think #NotAllMen was the plank we walked into it meaning just all men

i thought bro was derived mainly from "fraternity brother"

Maybe Oberlin’s banh mi sandwich should be judged not by how closely it apes the original, but whether it tastes as good?

My wild guess is that it doesn't taste as good.

According to the students, inauthentic and inferior ethnic food constitutes an insult and a slur on the culture that originated it. I think there is a nugget of truth in that idea. One certainly wonders how the Italians feel about the world's abuse of the concept of "pizza". But in the end I suspect this is about more than sandwiches and the students may not be making themselves clear in that regard.

there's something problematic in expecting American cafeteria workers to whip up "authentic" versions of ethnic food. You're pretty lucky if you don't get whipped cream on your sushi.

the actual article this thing is picking on is no big deal and mainly people saying they're mad b/c some kid is gonna try some "sushi" and thing sushi sucks but that's because they're getting fed crap that is mislabeled as sushi.

which is like fine and no big deal to say except this article grabs onto it as PC gone made or somth.

it just students complaining about crappy food in a boring article in a student newspaper really

would be impossible to construct a cafeteria menu comprising of food commonly eaten in America that could not be conceivably labeled as "appropriative". i hate sandwiches labeled banh mi that don't have the right bread too but not for political reasons

did laugh at this line and will be using "the blurring of cultural boundaries" as my go-to euphemism for european colonialism from now on.

"For one thing, the banh mi sandwich is itself the product of the blurring of cultural boundaries: French and Vietnamese.:

I would like to invite these kids to the Sodexho at my office. Nothing is appropriated there, I promise.

this waffle-batter is insufficiently Belgian

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/12/22/yes-virginia-there-is-a-left-wing-reform-movement/

just for the record, not that i feel i have anything more to say at this particular moment.

what an exhausting stupid discussion about so very little. (except to say that this is instance is clearly students mad about bad food latching on to culture rhetoric rather than students mad about cultural etc deciding the war to be waged is on bad food).

the oberlin list of actual demands is interesting http://www.scribd.com/doc/293326897/Oberlin-College-Black-Student-Union-Institutional-Demands

i think ultimately the left that freddie is critiquing is hopelessly marginalized and unlikely to ever mount a serious threat to the status quo. that is both a case for ignoring it (as i'm more wont to do every day) and for bemoaning the way that the academic + activist left have allowed themselves to become politically irrelevant for the sake of illusory ideological purity and the fantasy of radical change. i understand why freddie, who is ultimately embedded in the academic left professionally (and apparently familially) wants to stay and fight. i think he's being quixotic - the problem isn't even the students who will leave college, enter the workforce, and begin the slow, familiar process of moderation + compromise. it's the professors, administration, and totally bankrupt (literally and figuratively) institutional academy. nb no offense to the many ppl (some ilxors among them) doing fantastic work in the academy. but clearly there is some severe rot no matter what your personal politics are and i don't think it's incidental that it manifests in the ways that freddie notes in his long paragraph beginning "What do these people object to?"

why don't all the people "objecting to" shit just go off and like, you know, actually do something

instead they seem to prefer to, well, object