Yeah, I knew what you were saying. I was just fucking around. xp
― how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:01 (ten years ago) link
xp Well, the mu'atizil school of ethics is interesting, but I can only access their ideas in translation
― cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:01 (ten years ago) link
Screw my spelling today. It's Mu'tazilah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazila
― cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:04 (ten years ago) link
gbx otm. liberals are often creepy.
― Me and my pool noodle (contenderizer), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:08 (ten years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThrZ9-sS6aM
― abcfsk, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:35 (ten years ago) link
Conservatives, who twist liberal concepts to benefit their own goals.
this sort of bad faith argument is so common on the right i wish it had a name. the general strategy is almost a reductio ad absurdum in which, say, some concept of fairness that leads the left to things like affirmative action is then the same idea that leads conservatives to decry affirmative action as "discriminatory." ("Blacks are the real racists because they talk about race so much," is another favorite one.)
the irony to all this is that it's an absolutely self-defeating gesture because while it's intended to push back against some imagined liberal hegemony, it's instead parasitic on it--there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism. you could almost say it takes place within the assumptions of liberalism in that notions of "social justice" and fairness are equally central but "twisted" into a parody version of themselves. i guess this is what happens when conservatism is unmoored from anything like tradition and replaces it with radical individualism/autonomy (ie, freedom from society).
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 13:35 (ten years ago) link
there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism
This is v. interesting
― cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:15 (ten years ago) link
it's an overstatement, but i think it applies at least in part to the "media" version of conservatism (talk radio, NRO, etc...)
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:15 (ten years ago) link
this is what i'd describe as football fan politics, more akin to cheering for a nebulous team, right or wrong, and it definitely has a leftist equivalent
― for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:17 (ten years ago) link
Definitely. The bad faith characterisation aspect too.
― dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:18 (ten years ago) link
just came across an interesting passage from Aldous Huxley who defines being a partisan as "egotism at one remove"--a mechanism which allows you to indulge in just about any vice and call it virtue.
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:22 (ten years ago) link
there's also a strong element of the coopting of weighted language -- there are phrases that are commonly used, such as "gun control," which are relatively useless when used as intended because they bring up the baggage attached by groups against the concept
― mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:26 (ten years ago) link
or, god help us, what people think "feminism" means
when the right invokes 'free speech' or 'racism' to undermine a common leftist position/belief, is that analogous in any way to the left evoking 'security' as a reason why eg the united states shouldn't use drone strikes. (bc they're undermining their own security by radicalizing more terrorists.) in both cases these aren't ideals that are generally associated w/ the political side and you suspect that maybe they're only being brought up as ideological concern trolling.
― Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:12 (ten years ago) link
i think it's fair game to address an opposition position and try to show that it fails on its own terms as long as you're honest in what you're doing
― for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:32 (ten years ago) link
Mordy, doesn't it depend on whether the ideal is inherent in the original critique or just bolted on?
― cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 18:39 (ten years ago) link
Why call it "creepy liberalism"? I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.― Neanderthal, Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:11 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Neanderthal, Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:11 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Really? I see liberals (you know people who read the Guardian or the NYT) making comments like the ones mentioned in the OP very often, especially the third type. like if you followed the recent discussions around the EDL in the UK you'd see self identified "lefties" (ugh @ that term, but I use it specifically to differentiate from leftists) saying "well yeah the EDL are bigots but hey - free speech" or condemning antifash groups for confronting fascists instead of "engaging in reasoned debate" or some bullshit (also see the Tea Defence League thing or a typical Guardian CiF thread). Usually the people invoking free speech in this context aren't the ones who are affected by the bigotry in question, makes it easy.
― My god. Pure ideology. (ey), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:00 (ten years ago) link
how do lefties vs leftists pls
― dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:01 (ten years ago) link
i mean i suppose people on all sides do it, I did when I was 19, but just didn't get why he picked that side in his description
― Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:03 (ten years ago) link
i assume "leftie" = kneejerk football fan leftists and "leftist" = anybody who holds left-leaning political views
― for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:04 (ten years ago) link
lol fuckin splitters
― dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:09 (ten years ago) link
nah cos the former is a subsection of the latter? i mean, i am avowedly a leftist but i try hard not to be a leftie on the whole
― for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:10 (ten years ago) link
but you are v much distancing yrself from them
― dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:11 (ten years ago) link
i don't think it's a "them" so much as an attitude to be deplored, i would argue that you do plenty of sniping at that same kind of attitude on ilx
― for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:13 (ten years ago) link
sorry, i meant to say it's not a group of people, it's a behaviour that any leftist can slip into. i'd argue the same for the right except everybody knows there are no thoughtful, nuanced right wing shitheads
― for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:14 (ten years ago) link
not sure im not just one of em tbrrr
― dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:15 (ten years ago) link
haha xp, xp!
Sorry, meant to write "lefty" in the 1st instance, I suck at spelling/thinking. But wrt to the difference, I think the word "lefty" itself as an infantilised, cutesy form of "leftist" or "left-wing" also reflects the infantilised, shitty politics unconcerned with nuance and removed from actual left-wing thought of the people who self-identify with it.
For context as to where I'm coming from with this criticism, I'm sort of a #combatliberalism type of person.
― My god. Pure ideology. (ey), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:19 (ten years ago) link
There's also a sense online that some people who are mainly interested in free speech - may have a reasoned, valuable commitment to it - sometimes 'swoop' into discussions merely to assert that free speech is more important than anything else and then swoop out again.
― cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:27 (ten years ago) link
To me free speech as a concept is basically a legal one. It mainly bears on whether a person can be treated as a criminal for saying something. I am not quite an absolutist on this question, but very close. I would say that the state must have overwhelming interests at stake to justify criminalizing speech. Civil liability is a different question and I'm willing to treat it by looser, but still restrictive, standards.
But just because some kinds of expression ought not be criminalized, it doesn't mean they are socially acceptable in any way. I'm fine and dandy with calling people out for anything they say that's harmful or offensive, even organizing boycotts or protests over offensive speech. It is when the law gets into it that I grow exceedingly cautious.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:29 (ten years ago) link
Add to that that I think a lot of the early promoters of free speech were literally talking about printing presses, pamphlets and public speaking. Now we have the telephone, the television, cinema, the internet, all of which alter communication massively each in their own way and together. Dunno if that should make a difference or be registered by free speech arguments. Maybe, maybe not, but it seems like something that gets missed a lot.
― cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:29 (ten years ago) link
The internet analogizes pretty well to printing presses and publication, with the owner of the server as the publisher. I can upload my posts to ilx or my photos to flickr, just as I can write a letter to the editor and use the newspaper to disseminate my letter, but that use is conditional on the editors of the newspaper wanting to publish it. Similarly, paid space on a server is subject to the conditions of sale, as imposed by the owner and accepted by the buyer, as with ads in a newspaper.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:38 (ten years ago) link
ppl who don't think liberals do this apparently haven't met every white ex-hippy/deadhead/pink floyd megafan boomer dude i've metthis:
― ty based gay dead computer god (zachlyon), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 22:47 (ten years ago) link
they do it, I just didn't originally get why he only zeroed in on liberals.
I once saw a Wikipedia argument on someone's talk page where he had content removed as it was original research (which he didn't deny), and he replied saying that he would file a lawsuit if it wasn't reinstated, as Wikipedia had violated his free speech, and he had won a similar case like this before.
can't find it anymore but wish I could, it was really funny.
― Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 22:52 (ten years ago) link
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116842/trigger-warnings-have-spread-blogs-college-classes-thats-bad
What began as a way of moderating Internet forums for the vulnerable and mentally ill now threatens to define public discussion both online and off. The trigger warning signals not only the growing precautionary approach to words and ideas in the university, but a wider cultural hypersensitivity to harm and a paranoia about giving offense. And yet, for all the debate about the warnings on campuses and on the Internet, few are grappling with the ramifications for society as a whole.
hard not to read this article as a combo WE AINT HURTIN NO ONE CMON and SHUTINS STAY HOME, but the framing does kind of suggest that the spread of trigger warnings mistakenly accepts the liberal scheme for the public management of wrongs/risks: class it as a harm, institute safeguards.
i don't know much about liberal theory. are there recognized classes of things that are proscribed because they might do harm, but it can't be known in advance whether they would in fact do so (thus the logic of a trigger warning, to issue a precaution to permit those who expect harm to exclude themselves)? (if pertaining to speech, would that just traditionally fall under 'decorum' and 'decency'?)
― j., Monday, 10 March 2014 03:07 (ten years ago) link
Weird thing to worry about in an age when there are fewer barriers to people viewing all different kinds of content than ever before. Everything is accessible at every moment; things like trigger warnings are just there to help people navigate life without having negative emotional responses forced on them. It has nothing to do with "free speech."
― Treeship, Monday, 10 March 2014 03:28 (ten years ago) link
The trigger-warning-requiring "trauma" strikes me as a little bit like the gluten allergy -- a very real but not extremely common phenomenon that gets co-opted by attention seekers.
― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 10 March 2014 03:32 (ten years ago) link
treezy the reason i put this in this thread (besides tnr lol) is that the framework seems to be the liberal framework, in which speech is traditionally one of the acts least thought to fall within the scope of the harm principle. since the rationale for trigger-warning seems to involve avoiding the inadvertent causing of harms (or maybe that's not the right description, which would matter?), it seems like it's worth asking what a more widespread use of trigger warnings implies about our conceptions/perceptions of ourselves and our speech. say, as harmful to ourselves, beyond our ability to control or to bear it, because of what has been done to us or what has happened to us. and of speech, the words of others, as a danger to our mundane capacity to play a part in the sphere of speech, to relate to others in public.
― j., Monday, 10 March 2014 03:49 (ten years ago) link
like, the more is classed under traumas of that sort, the conception becomes an appeal to liberalism's hatred of cruelty, because the triggerable person would be regarded as bearing persistently or permanently tender wounds which any sensitive responsible person would forbear to touch. but i'm not sure a practice of free and open discussion is compatible with that degree of wariness about speech as potentially cruel.
― j., Monday, 10 March 2014 03:59 (ten years ago) link
counterpoint
“People brutalise everything. They get up noisily, go about noisily all day, and go to bed noisily. And they constantly talk far too noisily. They are so taken up with themselves that they don’t notice the distress they constantly cause to others, to those who are sick. Everything they do, everything they say causes distress to people like us. And in this way they force anyone who is sick more and more into the background until he’s no longer noticed. And the sick person withdraws into his background. But every life, every existence, belongs to one person and one person only, and no one else has the right to force this life and this existence to one side, to force it out of the way, to force it out of existence. We’ll go by ourselves, as we have the right to do. That’s part of the natural course.”— Thomas Bernhard — from Concrete
― j., Monday, 10 March 2014 04:10 (ten years ago) link
as harmful to ourselves, beyond our ability to control or to bear it,
I may not be following all the parts of your argument, but my response to this bit is, why does it have to be "unbearable" to be unacceptable? Can't people determine for themselves what level of pain or discomfort or aggravation they're prepared to accept at that moment? Trigger warnings are just to let those people know that they may, for their own mental and/or emotional health, want to exercise their right to that limit.
xp I think that last post gets at my point more.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:11 (ten years ago) link
you realize a trigger warning doesn't actually prevent anything from being said.
the more widespread use of trigger warnings implies that more people know what triggers and trigger warnings are and want to create welcoming environments for people who need them. it allows people to mentally prepare themselves if they need to, or bail altogether if they need to. i don't even have 'triggers' and i appreciate them for my own sake. if i were in a hypothetical class right now and i saw a PPT with the header "Trigger Warning: Suicide" i would bail. i'm not sure how any discussion benefits from me freaking out in the middle of a classroom. 15 million american adults share my disorder.
xp
― a commentary on self-absorbed youth culture in the social media age (zachlyon), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:13 (ten years ago) link
Imo to reject the idea of triggers and trigger warnings as unnecessary or RUN AMOK or w/e is basically to say, "Regardless of who you or I am or what our relationship is, I claim the right to add to your pain today. Fuck you. Deal with it. Not my problem." And then you expect friendship or scholarship or obedience or agreement or anything from that person afterward?
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:18 (ten years ago) link
i know it doesn't prevent the things from being said, but it effects a greater regimentation of speech that seems to parallel the contractualization of all human relations under late liberalism, which seems like maybe not the soundest tactic xp
― j., Monday, 10 March 2014 04:19 (ten years ago) link
I'm just not seeing a problem with that.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:21 (ten years ago) link
Maybe I don't know what "late liberalism" means? But I think framing it as an issue of "contractualization" and moreover of that being a BAD thing is loading the dice.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:23 (ten years ago) link
cool with putting the well-being of people with disabilities over the greater regimentation of speech that seems to parallel the contractualization of all human relations under late liberalism
― a commentary on self-absorbed youth culture in the social media age (zachlyon), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:25 (ten years ago) link
well, i think the picture of self-culture in a liberal like mill is predicated on a certain degree of personal risk-taking in the pursuit of growth, and on a certain health of spirit (the kind he suffered a lack of during his depressive episode)
if you take bernhard's metaphor w/o worrying too much about the fit, and say ok, society is now such that so many more of us are just sick (in some sense, wounded, whatever), and no one has the right to force us to suffer any more than we already do, where in anticipation of the sort of harms under consideration here, we require ourselves to engage in this kind of more extensive regimentation of our public interaction, it seems like something that is not going to improve our health any—at best, maybe maintain our sickly condition without it worsening.
something very nietzsche's last man about that picture. xp
― j., Monday, 10 March 2014 04:30 (ten years ago) link
Dude. If one of my loved ones died alone and was eaten by their cats and now I'm traumatized when anyone talks about feeding their cats, that is not something one could reasonably predict might have that effect. But when we're referring to rape, assault, grief, disability, trauma, a whole lot of things that we all agree have a lasting harmful effect on people's well being, to protest having to observe some sensitivity about that is really, really lame. And defensive. Aaaaaaand...do those people not have anything worse than that in their lives to be offended about? Like, if having to limit your speech so as NOT TO HURT PEOPLE is the most you've ever been infringed on, you might want to get to, I dunno, go outside once in a while.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:34 (ten years ago) link
Also you might want to reconsider the fedora as a personal style choice.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 10 March 2014 04:41 (ten years ago) link
Sometimes I get it confused with CLASPERS, because I'm a shark pervert.
― peace, man, Thursday, 16 December 2021 01:07 (two years ago) link
I put calpers on my pizza
― Chappies banging dustbin lids together (President Keyes), Thursday, 16 December 2021 03:35 (two years ago) link
Skull CALPERS
― papal hotwife (milo z), Thursday, 16 December 2021 03:45 (two years ago) link
all I'm saying is that California is a very populous state with a lot of government employees and one of the main reasons people choose to work for the state government is benefits such as a pension, administered by CALPERS, from which they receive immense volumes of correspondence throughout their careers and retirement. This is not to be confused with CALSTERS -- the California State Teachers Employee Retirement System, which is separate.
― sarahell, Friday, 17 December 2021 02:39 (two years ago) link
oh, so that's what you were saying. sorry, that went right over my head. I'll try to pay better attention in the future.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 17 December 2021 03:48 (two years ago) link
Or CALPIRG, those bright-eyed kids with the card tables.
― peace, man, Friday, 17 December 2021 11:09 (two years ago) link
aiui many exhibits in the Ghislaine trial are shown only to the jury and a lot of stuff is heavily redacted, but I’m just going to wildly speculate that Pinker showed up in one too many photos from Epstein’s private collection
― caddy lac brougham? (will), Friday, 17 December 2021 12:49 (two years ago) link
xp - idk to me, a cryptic acronym, is either one where you have no idea how the acronym was derived from the name of the thing, or one where even if you know what the full name is, it is still unclear what the thing actually is or does.
― sarahell, Friday, 17 December 2021 16:01 (two years ago) link
Like compare these in terms of "cryptic-ness"
BUTT - Bouncing Undulating Twerking Tool
vs
BUTT - Bettering Understanding Transitional Talismans
― sarahell, Friday, 17 December 2021 16:06 (two years ago) link
can a mod add a new ILX autoreplace?
― Vangelis fleadh (seandalai), Monday, 20 December 2021 13:21 (two years ago) link
Michael Eisen has been canned from eLife. He’s tenured at Berkley so it’s a stretch to describe it as “being canceled.” Twitter is filled with posts about free speech in defense of Eisen and, in a variety of ways, Eisen is representative of creepy liberalism.
I usually don’t have feelings or opinions about these culture or political issues but I, for whatever reason, can’t stop thinking about this today. Eisen is a great scientist but Eisen was a terrible editor.
― Allen (etaeoe), Tuesday, 24 October 2023 20:53 (five months ago) link
There’s also a personal component for me. Because of his following and position he’s the major example of being a bipolar academic on social media. I genuinely feel like I’m a moment from posting something really dumb.
― Allen (etaeoe), Tuesday, 24 October 2023 20:55 (five months ago) link
he can be a terrible editor and suck in a variety of ways but if he was removed from a post due to retweeting an onion article that's still worthy of condemnation.
― I? not I! He! He! HIM! (akm), Tuesday, 24 October 2023 21:04 (five months ago) link
I agree. Nevertheless, the eLife letter claims it’s because of multiple (unnamed) incidents. I believe this wasn’t entirely about posting The Onion article. Especially when that’s, compared to some of his other posts, relatively innocuous.
― Allen (etaeoe), Tuesday, 24 October 2023 21:10 (five months ago) link
My first thought when I see stories like that--and I freely admit I know nothing more about this case than what you have posted here--is that there was probably sexual misconduct at the back of it.
― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Tuesday, 24 October 2023 21:13 (five months ago) link
― Allen (etaeoe), Tuesday, October 24, 2023 5:10 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink
could you just…say what’s on your mind here? his canning is facially, incontrovertibly preposterous. what other beef do you have exactly?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 25 October 2023 04:52 (five months ago) link
Posted about this case because it just seemed the weirdest one. But I see tweets like "an academic has been suspended" or "I lost a freelance gig" etc.
Utterly vile. "Free speech" as conducted in liberal democracies is an utter sham.
― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 25 October 2023 10:04 (five months ago) link
Unsurprisingly, the craven art world seems to be operating similarly as many universities— Artforum Fires Top Editor After Open Letter on Israel-Hamas War
― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Friday, 27 October 2023 11:29 (five months ago) link
More on that kerfuffle— artworks have been returned and artists told to “stay in line.” https://theintercept.com/2023/10/26/artforum-artists-gaza-ceasefire-martin-eisenberg/
― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Friday, 27 October 2023 12:15 (five months ago) link
"In the future we'll launder money and dodge taxes with only ethnic cleansing-supportive art."
― papal hotwife (milo z), Friday, 27 October 2023 13:40 (five months ago) link
A paragraph from that Intercept link that jumped out
The authors of the response letter — the joint directors of Lévy Gorvy Dayan, which has gallery spaces and offices in New York, London, Paris, and Hong Kong — curate shows with some of the most prolific and highest grossing artists in the world, both living and dead. Their website lists Jean-Michel Basquiat, Gerhard Richter, Andy Warhol, Cy Twombly, Joel Mesler, and Adrian Piper as representative artists and collaborators. Dayan is the granddaughter of Moshe Dayan, the Israeli politician and military commander who is alleged to have ordered the country’s military to attack the American naval ship the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War of 1967
― Elvis Telecom, Saturday, 28 October 2023 21:38 (five months ago) link
IDK if this is exactly the right thread for this. I don't really listen to Huberman, but I find this style of "investigative" smear piece to be gross and a trend I really don't like. AFAICT, the allegations are that Huberman is flaky and a shitty boyfriend? Like if he yelled and acted jealous of a woman's past I can see that that's "toxic" but it hardly seems worthy of reporting on, esp when the woman is a full-fledged adult with education and resources and there doesn't appear to have been any coercion, threats, assault, etc. Like why is "moderately famous person isn't a great guy" worthy of reporting?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html?fbclid=IwAR3RqYspsmm0DL0VodXpthlf6DC3p-vziR-enLDDmbc9wFRHTnLpakC2P30
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Tuesday, 26 March 2024 01:52 (two days ago) link