Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

aimless, i don't know what you are arguing here. this is a link to "politics and the english langauge," an essay where orwell points out what he sees as disturbing trends among the left intelligentsia of his time, who have been repeating the same cliches over and over and seem resistant to interpreting their situations "afresh," even at a time when things are changing all the time. his point is to encourage writers to be more aware of how their speech relates to "reality", nebulous that may be, and be on the lookout for what de boer has recently termed "critique drift," which is when a general principle takes over one's mind so completely that it obscures more than it reveals.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

if orwell were here, would you tell him 1.) this is pointless the war is lost, 2.) i disagree with your analysis. i don't think these problems you identify are real problems, or else they aren't problems for the precise reasons that you give. my analysis is _______________ 3.) something else

that post might sound snarky. wasn't intended as such. i just don't quite understand your position in terms of the desirability or relevance of a substantive meta-critique of political language

xps

re university (and why this tends to flare up there), it's place (along with internet) where rhetoric (word-techne, word-power, self-fashioning/ ego-construction through speech-acts) holds peculiar sway

of course ‘real life’ politics also about rhetoric, but not only (& it also involves rhetoric too often discounted/ misunderstood by the left)

nb that’s one reason pre-election polls often fail

but deej otm that exhortation to move from ‘online’ to ‘real life’ (“being the hardest working person in real life”) may be unhelpful cliche too—

and that (false?) dichotomy not necessarily where relevant distinction is. problem (i think?) is intra-discursive, as opposed to within vs. outside of (online) discourse

xp

When you tell me "you can't let them have free rein over everything", I can't figure out what you have in mind that would be any different than "carv[ing] out a space where these abuses are exposed, challenged and showed for what they are"? Or how what Orwell is doing in his justly famous essay is any different, either.

So, I have a similar difficulty understanding what you think you are telling me that is a corrective to or amplification of my earlier statement.

LOL @ Mordy's blog post. What self-congratulatory, generalized nonsense. That Star Wars ring theory was more convincing.

presumably the rl comment from freddie just means "stop thinking arguing on twitter counts as civic duty"

adam i didn't post any blog posts. which are you referring to?

speaking of malice, egoism, impulsiveness and bad judgment, FdB in his looong examination of the toast misses the point of Nicole Cliffe's "list." is it a joke? not really, it's a dare. i dare you to whine about this. i dare you to not get it. pipe up, fucker, see what it gets you with me. can you help yourself? no, i bet you can't.

i mean, look at the followup: http://the-toast.net/2015/05/13/my-favourite-deleted-comments-from-the-white-dude-book-list/

ok, fine, FdB isn't down with that kind of tribal entertainment. but he doesn't seem to really get why it exists. laziness? idk, maybe. i don't see how an unlazy, more diligent and industrious left would be any clearer of this kind of middle-finger raising stuff.

"hacky garbage" not up to the Toast's occasionally "perceptive" best? oh well, they can't all be hits i guess.

doesn't he get get how furious people are? it misses him what underlies the blank-faced non-humor of a post like this. what a respite it is to see something that's as fed up as you are. if there's one thing i've figured out from reading enough of the "online left" "identity politics" ppl is the realness of anger. living in the majority culture but marked as outside it in some/many ways is exhausting on a level i'll never get. people are pissed! they're pissed at white men! it's all so unmanageable for dB.

And none of this is even to begin to ask what, exactly, any of this stuff accomplishes, how continuing to build this immense shibboleth White Dudes — made by white people, for the entertainment of white people — actually helps in the fight against racism or sexism. Set those basic questions of what we’re actually doing here aside.

...

One-liners don’t build a movement. Being clever doesn’t fix the world. Scoring points on Twitter doesn’t create justice. Jokes make nothing happen.

are you sure? like are you really sure they don't? it all counts, buddy! i'm trying to imagine a left that was devoid of these things and it looks like something already empty and decapitated.

What did Emma Goldman say? "On the internet I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha, a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if he were about to announce the death of a dear comrade, he whispered to me that it did not behoove an agitator to do mean posts."

xp Mordy: the post which opines "We can’t articulate why our vision of the future is better than the other side’s" while not taking the slightest effort to attempt such an elucidation.

Maybe I am just not a fan of meta-critiquing in general. I say if you have a problem w the way things are, try and explain a better way to do it, rather than knocking it down.

oh ok i was just c/ping from h00s deboer link

FdB in his looong examination of the toast

god this was profoundly embarassing

deej otm that exhortation to move from ‘online’ to ‘real life’ (“being the hardest working person in real life”) may be unhelpful cliche too

i go back and forth on this--obviously work being done online is valuable (its what i do for a living), but a large part of its overall value comes from its impact on people's offline lives. i think FDB's point is that when we prioritize discursive warfare over living impact, we're losing the plot. and i'd agree.

and discursive warfare *is* living impact when we live online, clearly--i guess i'm just saying putting all the eggs in that basket misses the boat for me.

hoos i'm thinking of this not really in the context of #irl organizing work that you do but in the context of ongoing anti-harassment struggles, overlapping with school, writing, work, dating, and so on. people are struggling to just be online, freddie doesn't like the jokes. i don't want to over-elevate "discursive warfare" either. who would want to do that, after all.

need it even be said, that one bay area fanatic who equated opposition to TPP to a lynching is a jackass.

it was interesting how easily he invoked the language of anti-racism and anti-sexism to defend his disgustingness though. when people start thinking too much in stereotypes -- this is a brocialist view, authentic people with real struggles think this other thing, listen up dudebros, etc. -- it just makes things cloudy and dumb. imo.

lol @ "brocialist"

some people have found that language useful in articulating real things they've encountered though, so i feel weird dismissing it. but what deboer calls "critique drift" is, i think, real. maybe stereotypes can only work for progressives at first, but eventually they are just going to reify identity in troubling, exclusionary ways. like "stuff white people like," which claims to paint "white" stuff as overly bland, but has the effect of 1.) closing nonwhite people off from stuff many connect to, like artisan handbags and soap and indie music 2.) implying that non-white culture is something other than safe and civilized.

that deblah piece is amazingly incoherent. it starts by picking on something that is probably universally acknowledged to be deranged, something massively outlying in stupidity, and then it somehow ties it into the majority of the piece, which is on the toast, and which turns the just sort of ok but maybe a bit clever toast article into something fucking amazing.

like the toast piece doesn't say they are good books to own or bad books, worthwhile to read or not. it is just books that it claims white men own at least one of. if you find that somehow offensive, that's what you're bringing to the table freddy, not what the toast put out there.

"Tags: books, i own most of these books myself, men, undisputable facts"

One of the weirdest parts of FDB's argument is the assertion that we're all on the same page w/r/t goals, where after reading a few of his pieces you start to wonder if that's, you know, actually true.

a lot of the biggest problems w/ this kind of language is just a simple lack of intersectional thinking, right?

i don't want to open a can of worms where i haven't researched the full dimension of the discussion around it, but if someone thinks i'm off-tm with this i'm sure there are plenty of better examples. But i think for example of the phenomenon of 'manspreading' or men taking up space on the subway, and how there's a reasonable seeming argument to me that oftentimes the policing of this ignores a class difference: that a post collegiate with an office job accusing a guy exhausted from his manual labor gig of 'manspreading' is probably not thinking about issues of class. This isn't a problem, though, of person X being too PC or too controlled by modern left discourse as much as it is a lack of awareness regarding entitlement which is what this whole thing is combating

so i mean, apply this to the white man books list: from the POV of a person uncomfortable w/ the grammar of institutional power, who feels on the 'outside,' to see a list of books that they've been told to read in high school, and to be the only one in their family who was like, i'm going to read these books and get to college, and then they do it & are suddenly told that they'd invested their time and energy into a false idol of the white man's educational system—it's that system they should be mad at, yes, but does this article reach this person, or does it only address those already familiar with that conversation—everyone who's already keyed in to the 'rules of the game'?

idk as a dare i don't think it's wrong, if it destabilizes the canon before rhetorical straw man from that last example gets to school then good, although i kind of get where freddie is coming from when one gets the feeling that this book list can have the effect of seeming impenetrable to those who haven't grown up in a literary household, discussing novels & understanding that the canon they received in high school wasn't to be trusted

the piece doesn't say anything about how those books are a "false idol of the white man's educational system" this is such a fake strawman "only person in their family" thing you've invented i don't even know. and like the list has James Clavell (who is so perfect to start it off!) and tucker max and fuckin seabiscuit and The 9/11 Commission Report -- its not doing what you think it is.

have we talked about why fdb's chosen selfy is a blurry "this facial expression"?

that deblah piece is amazingly incoherent.

otm.

The piece in the Toast listing 79 titles of books "that literally all white men own" was even more incoherent and pointless, btw, in that it said as close to nothing at all as it is possible to say in that many words. I own maybe six of the 79 books and I am a white man, but somehow neither of these facts, nor their confluence, came as a surprise or a shock to me. You could have impressed me as much if you told me I also eat toast or own socks.

the piece doesn't say anything about how those books are a "false idol of the white man's educational system" this is such a fake strawman "only person in their family" thing you've invented i don't even know. and like the list has James Clavell (who is so perfect to start it off!) and tucker max and fuckin seabiscuit and The 9/11 Commission Report -- its not doing what you think it is.

have we talked about why fdb's chosen selfy is a blurry "this facial expression"?

― entry-level umami (mild bleu cheese vibes) (s.clover), Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:06 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what? this has nothing to do with anything

my point is i think there is a good argument for the 'problem' with the book list but i think it makes more sense to critique it from the POV of the very social justice language FDB is rejecting—that it's not very intersectional

its not doing what you think it is.

― entry-level umami (mild bleu cheese vibes) (s.clover), Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:06 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes, it is

its not doing what you think it is.

it did something to me that I didn't notice? spooky!

basically i believe the anger in the book list comes from a real & righteous place~! but the closer it gets to an inkblot troll the further it gets from a coherent critique so idk, maybe i'm giving it too much credit as the latter when it's entirely intended to be the former

i don't want this to turn into a spiraling argument like the gawker thread btw i'm actually v curious what people think about this issue, maybe I'm crazy ! idk

i think the fetishization of anger is one of the worst parts of the sj movement. i'm sure "tone-policing" has occasionally happened in an attempt to maliciously rob disenfranchised ppl of their righteous anger, but aversion to anger is common to numerous religions, cultures, communities, etc. lots of humans have figured out that even righteous anger is a destructive force.

like 'legitimate anger' or 'authentic anger' only tells me that anger is an understandable human emotion, nothing about whether it's healthy. fear + hate are also understandable human emotions.

i realize mordy & i are stopped-clocking again so i'll push a little bit & point out that i think the whole argument that for ex the rape epidemic or police shootings are a 'state of emergency' situation where rage and anger are the only rational responses to an irrational system

basically i believe the anger in the book list comes from a real & righteous place~! but the closer it gets to an inkblot troll the further it gets from a coherent critique so idk, maybe i'm giving it too much credit as the latter when it's entirely intended to be the former

― deej loaf (D-40), Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:26 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the book list doesn't have any anger. it is a list of books. it is entirely an inkblot.

the fact that you see anger is what it is doing do u see

it is just like some books and a claim that white men tend to own them.

how do you possibly see anger

imo FDB is a more "hacky" writer and a bigger asshole than any of the ppl he has ever written a 2,000 word passive-aggressive diatribe about

i mean...i'm responding to goole's post in part xp

i'm not the one taking a stand against anger btw

anger is cool with me!

i'm the one taking a courageous stand against anger. well, really i'm just following the lead of maimonides:

There are certain character traits which a person is forbidden to accustom himself in, even in moderation. Rather, he must distance himself to the opposite extreme. One such trait is haughtiness...

"So too is anger an exceedingly bad quality; one from which it is proper that one distance himself to an extreme. A person should train himself not to anger even on a matter regarding which anger is appropriate. And if a person wants to instill awe upon his children -- or if he is an administrator / provider ('parnais') and wants to anger at the community members in order that they mend their ways, he should only feign anger in their presence in order to castigate them, but his mind should be composed within. He should act as one impersonating an [angry] man while not being angry himself.

"The early Sages said, 'Whoever angers is as if he has performed idolatry.' They said further that one who angers, if he is a scholar his wisdom will depart from him, and if he is a prophet his prophetic spirit will depart from him. [The Sages further stated,] 'People who have tempers -- their lives are not lives.'

"Therefore, [the Sages] instructed us that one should distance himself from anger so much so that one accustoms himself not to feel even things which [would ordinarily] incite one to anger. And this is the ideal path.

"It is [further] the way of the righteous that they are insulted / abused ('aluvim') but do not insult back; they hear themselves being disgraced and do not respond. They act out of love and rejoice in suffering. Regarding them does the verse state, 'And those that love Him are as the emergence of the sun in its power' (Judges 5:31)."

I could see where a great many of the books that were listed are schlocky middlebrow novels, about on a par with the majority of contemporary movies that cost over $40 million to make, but it seems a waste of anger to be angry over their very existence. Nor does the fact that a book gets read imply that the reader has been basted in its worldview and will forever after carry the taste of it.

If it makes the author any happier, the number of such middlebrow novels that achieve wide popularity and sell in the millions has been shrinking every year for decades, as fewer and fewer people read books for entertainment. In about three more decades, the whole idea of "all white men" owning any book of any description will probably be seen as a laughable premise. In the real world there are plenty of homes where you'd be hard pressed to locate more than 15 books in the whole house, even if a white man lives there.

But this is not the conversation most of you seem to want to have, so carry on.

the toast list is just baiting humorless notallmen types, I mean one of the tags on the post is "i own most of these books myself"

is including the 9/11 commission report a jab at 9/11 truthers? feel like they're the only ones who actually read it

He should act as one impersonating an [angry] man while not being angry himself.

I must say, this is so awesome - Maimonides otm

kind of contradicts mordy's point tho

how do you figure? do you think the world of twitter rage is carefully considered attempts to improve communal behavior through the feigning of anger?

i think that you can't tell the difference between whether someone is angry in the instinctive lashing out sense vs. 'impersonating an angry man' or that impersonation would be failing

the toast list is just baiting humorless notallmen types, I mean one of the tags on the post is "i own most of these books myself"

― anonanon, Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:08 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

kind of a more boring post this way tho no? who wants to write idiot flypaper

i think the impersonation of anger he is talking about looks quite different from 'instinctively lashing out.'

Maimonides is obviously priveleging rationality above all else there, with anger to be deployed as a rhetorical tactic in service of a rational goal

idk I don't have much to add here, carry on

not least of which bc it's quite obv which angry statements could possibly help improve behavior (specifically addressed w/ specific prescriptions for new behavior) and which ones are just bitter, hateful, etc

idk shakey, i think the rambam does privilege more 'virtuous' emotions that would take precedence over rationality (tho you're right that he privileges rationality to an extraordinary degree) for example awe at God, or trust in God, or love for fellow man, etc - these are all very good attributes tho i don't remember off-hand whether he says you can go to the extreme in their direction i'll have to look that up to see if he discusses taking positive expressions in an extreme direction.