Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

I can't think of too many topics on which the woke/intersectional/extremely online left is currently notably divided

I mean this is where we fall prey to the motte and bailey problem because if you literally mean what I mean by "the intersectional / extremely online left" then I tend to agree with you, but if you mean by it what e.g. Bari Weiss or Andrew Sullivan mean by it, then that much larger group is notably divided on everything. To take just one thing: is it the intrinsic nature of U.S. police departments to be occupying forces whose goal is to maintain white supremacy, baked in from their origin as slave patrols? I think you might find pretty high levels of agreement with that statement on "the intersectional / extremely online left." But not at the New York Times editorial page! And if the New York Times editorial page is included the scope of the "woke left" (as people are very loudly claiming than it is) then the "orthodoxy" it purportedly enforces contains a pretty damn wide range of ideas, which includes the view stated above, but also Joe Biden's "police departments need serious reform but America should have police forces that run pretty much like they do right now except with fewer badged criminals." Perhaps it excludes "Protestors should be tear-gassed and/or shot before they inevitably rob sneakers from the sneaker store, you know how those people love sneakers -- what? Leftists, I meant leftists! Leftists love sneakers. What did you THINK I meant, GOD, why do you have to make everything about RACE? I, myself, cannot even see race. What race am I? I seriously don't know, never thought about it."

"To take just one thing: is it the intrinsic nature of U.S. police departments to be occupying forces whose goal is to maintain white supremacy, baked in from their origin as slave patrols? I think you might find pretty high levels of agreement with that statement on "the intersectional / extremely online left.""

well, yeah, because it's pretty fucking well supported by the evidence!

I can't think of too many topics on which the woke/intersectional/extremely online left is currently notably divided

key question before answering this is who is included in this grouping, or more to the point who isn't....as in who is left but not "woke/intersectional/extremely online left"?

well, yeah, because it's pretty fucking well supported by the evidence!

But it is 100% absurd for anyone to claim that you have to take this line to be a New York Times writer or a Democratic presidential candidate or a professor in a humanities department, or whatever, all of which venues are widely claimed to be enslaved to the stifling orthodoxy of the "intersectional / extremely online left," and all of which are, in point of fact, filled with (in the first two cases I would say dominated by) people who neither say this nor believe it.

update: at this moment, a portion of the intersectional left is having a heated discussion over whether we should adopt the metric system

give em an inch and they'll take a meter

tbh off the top of my head I can't think of too many topics on which the woke/intersectional/extremely online left is currently notably divided or exhibits a wide range of viewpoints that don't result in kneejerk derision. the efficacy/worthiness of electoral politics, the morality and legislation of sex work, and...?

not alleging that having a narrow set of acceptable-to-the-in-group opinions on a given topic is necessarily even bad! I don't think the left needs a pro-capital-punishment wing or indeed an anti-trans-rights wing to get by

― k*r*n koltrane (Simon H.), Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:44 PM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

this is an absolutely insane characterization IMO

draw the line at terfs & the bell curve = "there is complete conformity of thought on the left"

i think even within the more "radical" aspects of the left there are a lot of divisions -- IE afropessimism w/in black studies departments is, from my understanding, hardly the dominant paradigm, its a popular insurgent one, and even then there are divides w/in that movement about emphasis, finer points etc; AP tends to be more about diagnosis, then there are ppl more concerned w/ praxis. Then you have ppl who make up LARGE parts of the left who don't even know what these concepts are. Or thing there should be more of an emphasis on class even if intersectional.

I feel like the only way one can perceived "intersectionalists" as monolithic is if you yourself see it as a series of argument strategies instead of like, a multitude of coherent ideologies trying to create solidarity (actually, AP would argue that the notion of solidarity itself is an impossibility)

like, on the one hand a stereotype about the left is that it eats itself, and on the other hand, a stereotype about the left is that its totally monolithic...which one is it???

also want to pre emptively apologize for being stupid and impatient in these arguments, kate is much better at this & arguing from personal experience which i think ppl here find more persuasive, but it felt like if we zoom out & look big picture this critique of "the left" just falls apart completely & i felt it needed addressing

Re: rigidity and groupthink on the left: to characterize the left as such is patently false, any look inside a university humanities department could tell you that. I had a colleague in my department who struggled to understand and teach Foucault, and said as much in a departmental emails, and we're an R1 school and she has tenure. The group chat among adjuncts lit up with derision after that, let me tell you

One of the weirdest things about this liberal concern for "cancel culture", and it is something I struggle to express sometimes, is that it just doesn't reflect the behavior I'm asked to display for their benefit. Like, I'm not infrequently asked to disavow "antifa", and it's not just by conservatives, it's also by liberals, where I guess the thought process goes something like, you know, if you don't agree with them, why don't you speak against them?

And I will, you know, disagree with them to their face. Gladly! But that's not what I'm being asked to do, usually. I'm being asked to disavow them, to disassociate from them, so that I can prove to other people that, I don't know, we are on the same page I guess? But if I suggest those people might be well-served to disassociate themselves from J.K. Rowling, well, that seems to be a different story, that's "cancel culture" in action.

One of the things I have had the most trouble talking about to other people, including a number of people on this board, is what "my problem" is with ContraPoints. Her videos are popular, and when her supporters watch her videos, they see an intelligent, charismatic woman talking through things thoughtfully and reasonably. Which is also, when I watch her videos, what I see. I am not "cancelling" ContraPoints. I do not find anything she says in her videos to be objectionable.

In fact, my objection to her videos is based around a question that is completely _irrelevant_ in the Western philosophical tradition, which is not that of _what_, but _who_. I saw a video of hers and she had a guest reading the words of Terre Thaemlitz, DJ Sprinkles, and I thought that was great. I don't agree with Terre on everything but I think Terre is an important and amazing voice on many issues, including but not limited to the trans experience.

But I did notice that Terre wasn't reading her own words. I don't remember who it was, in fact, but it wasn't Terre, and I mean, I found that interesting. It's one thing to quote Terre's words alongside the words of any number of other important and influential thinkers, dead or alive, arranged in a context so as to present the desired effect. It's quite another entirely for Terre to speak for herself. Terre is alive. Terre is active. I read a wonderful, fascinating discussion last year between her and Octo Octa where they got into some very deep, very thought-provoking ideas. Did ContraPoints not ask Terre to read her own words, or did Terre decline? I don't have the _right_ to know these things, but I very much would like to know, I am very curious about this.

And then of course the thing that really caused all the trouble, ContraPoints having Buck Angel read a quote. And the quote - there was nothing wrong with the quote, just like there was nothing wrong with the quote J.K. Rowling posted and Steven King "liked" on Twitter. In the liberal tradition, that ought to be the end of it. ContraPoints can have any friends she wants, can present their voices in whatever way she wants, and as long as what they say in _that specific context_ is unobjectionable there is nothing that can possibly be objectionable about that act.

But here's the other thing - people who are obsessed, consumed, with so-called "cancel culture" look at that and see my unhappiness as a textbook example thereof, that I would have the same thing happen to Natalie Wynn that I would have happen to J.K. Rowling. You are at the center of everything, or you do not exist. That is the idea, apparently.

I think ContraPoints is a valuable voice. I have many friends who also find her to be a valuable voice, who find her inspirational and helpful. All I have to say, and I keep saying it in the hopes that people will start understanding, will catch on, is that she _does not speak for me_. That's it. I have a tremendous amount of trouble explaining this to cis people, who listen to her to find out what Trans People are like, and to the extent that people allow their ideas about me to be defined by ContraPoints, that is a fucking problem.

I have a more specific example in mind. I started with a more specific example. I have lost a friend because he could not bear to hear me talk about the things I talk about. We have been friends for more than 20 years. I flew across the country to go to his wedding. He walked away, walked away because he couldn't bear to hear what I had to say, and he blamed me for it. Blamed me for my "incivility".

I try to take responsibility for my words. If I say something that I think is wrong, I will apologize. I could not find anything to apologize for here. I could not swear to him that I would never talk about such things in his presence again. I did attempt to find a compromise, try to be kind to him. I put aside how unreasonable and unfair he was being, how hurt I was by his behavior, his inability to take responsibility for his own emotional shit. He did not want, did not accept, compromise. He walked away from our friendship.

You're not like that? That's not you? Fine. Don't tell me that, though - live it. Because that friend of mine, I suspect that he would tell you to this day that, you know, he's not really like that either.

cis people, who listen to her to find out what Trans People are like

Doesn't she herself regularly state that she does not speak for the trans community, but only for herself? I haven't watched her last few videos because the subject matter was not of interest to me in the way her earlier videos were, but I recall her being quite vehement about not being a spokesperson for anyone but herself. But I guess people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, for good or ill.

she does say that, I would guess the counter is that she benefits materially from the perception anyway / fosters that kind of relationship, were you so inclined to make that argument

i definitely acknowledge what she says. sometimes it seems like her words are not entirely in accordance with the way she behaves. i'm not unsympathetic to that. one of the big problems i have, that i struggle with, as a trans woman is that i was _not_ raised the way cis women were, that i was raised with lots of male privilege, all that crap that comes from being a Clever Boy, the idea that i am Important and that i can speak for anyone, anytime, with authority. which is only half-right - i am Important but i can only really speak for myself. i struggle, in practice, with getting that balance right.

so many posts upthread, too many things to argue about. I will only add that I wasn't trying to be clever when I was fishing for counter examples (topics that provoke a range of acceptable thought w/in woke circles), I was actually fishing for more! afropessimism is a good one

so many posts upthread, too many things to argue about. I will only add that I wasn't trying to be clever when I was fishing for counter examples (topics that provoke a range of acceptable thought w/in woke circles), I was actually fishing for more! afropessimism is a good one

― k*r*n koltrane (Simon H.)

i think afropessimism is a good example because, i mean, if you ask me what my opinion is an afropessimism, my response is probably going to be, and i don't want to be hostile with this question, i genuinely mean is, why are you even asking me? why on earth do you think my opinion on afropessimism is germane and relevant? it's borne out of experiences that aren't mine, which, if i'm understanding afropessimism correctly, can't even be _analogized_ to my experiences. and you're asking me, a middle aged white lady living in a suburb of the whitest city in america, what _my_ opinion is? my opinion is that my opinion shouldn't matter, that whatever you're asking for, i can goddamn guarantee you that my opinion has no relevance whatsoever to it.

i mean, i think this mode of thought can be applied to all kinds of different ideas. ta-nehisi coates wrote that article, "the case for reparations", and white people talked about it and talked about it and privately, you know, when we talk privately, there's a temptation for white people to look down on other white people who agree with coates. to think of them as "suckers", to make fun of them for their naivete, and all of this, of course, is hidden from people of color, as Civilized people we would never say that to _them_, in front of _them_. that his argument is cogent, is persuasive, that he's feted and lionized and a macarthur grant recipient, i don't know how much all of that matters. six years ago the atlantic published that article of his, and if you ask people today, after six years of intense liberal _debate_, whether or not they think reparations should be implemented, i suspect you will find a pretty strong dividing line if you break the answers down by the race of the people giving the answers, with people of color largely being in favor, and white people largely being opposed. that's too bad for people of color, because whether or not reparations happen is contingent on their getting the approval of white people.

a question that is completely _irrelevant_ in the Western philosophical tradition, which is not that of _what_, but _who_

Are you sure about that?

See, for instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1BuNmhjAY

Not to mention Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Plato/Socrates aka the Greek daddies who continuously force us to ask 'who is speaking?' as we read 'their' dialogues.

yeah that's clearly an overstatement and isn't strictly speaking accurate. i'd differentiate between the derrida/nietzsche/kierkegaard approach and whatever the hell is going on with the ancient greek philosophers, though.

the brazilian government tried to send glenn greenwald to jail six months ago for revealing political tampering in the car wash investigation that brought bolsonaro to power and the free speech people kicked him off the letter for some op-ed writers https://t.co/zgAenOEpfm

— frank furtschool (zoomer) (@osamabishounen) July 18, 2020

lmao

I thought gg was conspicuously absent from this important contribution to one of his pet causes. he was defending fellow white supremacist sully earlier, this makes them all look worse. why was chomsky allowed to stay?

UK libs:

"This book could save lives" says 'national treasure' Stephen Fry about a book written by a literal war criminal. What a perfect encapsulation of the absolute moral bankruptcy of this country's ruling elite. pic.twitter.com/018nj7ymxa

— Louis (@Louis_Allday) July 20, 2020

tbf to Campbell

lol no

just an observation that alongside the crimes he committed in the name of politics, and without questioning his own experience of depression, it's pretty clear that he routinely indulged in the kind of workplace behaviour that potentially impacts other people's mental health, so the hypocrisy of his presenting himself as a spokesman is

well, it's Alastair Campbell level

some of the worst things I've seen this year: Campbell playing bagpipes over Charles Kennedy's grave (talk about bullying/gaslighting the dead). Campbell stalking a nurse while playing his bagpipes like some fucking psychopathic serial killer. Campbell's White Lives Matter banner flying over the Etihad - yes it was him!

Free Speech champ Bret Weinstein folks:

Attn: @SamSeder, @TheYoungTurks @majorityfm producer @MattLech is broadcasting knowing falsehoods about me in a violence prone environment. The danger is obvious, as are your legal and journalistic obligations--Immediate retraction, apology and termination of Matt's employment.

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) July 18, 2020

I'm sure they'll get right on that.

apparently noted free speech advocate jk rowling is now suing and extorting money from websites that dare to criticize her

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day

money is speech too doncha know

this isn't the first time she's made legal threats to shut up people calling her transphobic either lol

Pulitzer winner and friend Anne Boyer wrote this on her blog recently:

For all toilers, from the hourly wage worker to the precariously employed freelancer to the salaried employee to the desperate job seeker, freedom of expression is always curtailed by the more noxious "freedom" of the "free" market. That is, we are "free" to sell our labor and we are "free" to be fired, replaced, spit out, thrown away, set "free" into a society in which profit defines all relations. We are, of course, also free to not sell our labor, which means for most people the freedom to give up the competition for survival (that is, the freedom to die). Even this horrible freedom of free labor can become more horrible in the racist and gendered machinations of our world, where unpaid labor and so-called surplus labor forces deepen the cruelty of capitalism’s life-extraction. This awful, deadly, false freedom is the only freedom of which much of the human earth can be certain right now.

This very simple state of things -- that as long as collective human needs are subordinated to inhuman profit no one can be free -- is the open secret of any conversation about free speech. The hypocrisy of omitting any mention of the inequalities that make speech truly unfree is glaring -- no letter demanding "tolerance" ever seems to be accompanied by a demand for a decent life for all. These calls for free speech don't even make a call for a moderate sort of proposal to make it illegal for bosses to fire workers at will or they forget even to ask for the small concession of universal health care not connected to work or income or spousal/familial status. Which is weird, of course, because making sure everyone has what they need to live would be the very best way to make certain that speech, opinion, expression, assembly, and thought could be free. Once that was taken care of, once no one had to bite their tongue for fear of losing housing, food, or health insurance, we could begin a robust and generative conversation about the boundaries of civil liberties.

Hanging out in the background of all this talk of freedom, too, is the constricting world economy, the massive loss of income and security by millions while the select few use the covid crisis as an opportunity to raid government coffers and stretch the stock market to fantastical heights, the ongoing forever wars, the egregious new border policies. Freedom now floods into the bank accounts of the billionaires and centa-millionaires, and the rest watch everything -- health, life, labor, dreams, opportunity, movement, the life of the very earth that is our home -- flood out. Remember this: all that you have lost and all that you will lose is going somewhere, to someone, and if you would like to know where, read the financial pages.

Further, the good, honest, admirable desire for "free expression" in this over-wrought stage of nearly-feudal capital has itself become a source of profit for these few. Having engineered platforms which invite the rest of us to share our feelings, opinions, and connections so that these might be turned into data and sold, then having, through these platforms, programmed the algorithms for addictive impact, a small group of would-be monopolists gild the toilets of their doomsday bunkers with the hard work of our brave or insipid or clever or shocking takes. What we so often think we are doing online when we are being free is instead working for free. The lowest thing of all low things is that these algorithms are perfected to make us miserable, triggered, paranoid, set against each other, alienated from our senses, our bodies, our proportion, deprived of the full potential and complexity of our thought, even deprived of the full capacity to remember or forget. Even for those who try to be careful not to fully trust their subjectivities to the tech-lords, thought can begin to take the form of the on-screen box that has been provided for us to fill, surveillance perched on every “like” button.

Daaaaaaamn, Anne Boyer severely otm

yup

Most of the time I have no idea what people are talking about when they talk about 'capitalism' tbh.

Usually I just assume it's about America and move on.

new board description

capitalism is when spotify gives joe rogan $100 million

there are books about capitalism and everything

It’s the system where you have to sell your labor to capital, or die

iiuc

*and die

i will say in capitalism's defence that i haven't come across a system of economic distribution that's conquered mortality

no other monster has been this successful at eating up life through work/dispossession/incarceration/enslavement/war/genocide/ecocide on such global industrial scales before

had anyone asked the congolese child miners this conversation depends on for their take on this whole cancel culture business? seems you have to have capital in the first place to be at risk of cancellation, extracted from others who are always cancelled already

no letter demanding "tolerance" ever seems to be accompanied by a demand for a decent life for all. These calls for free speech don't even make a call for a moderate sort of proposal to make it illegal for bosses to fire workers at will

This, by one of the signatories of the Harper's letter, was published a day before the letter was, and was one of the first articles published on a site affiliated with a number of the other signatories:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/a-better-remedy-for-cancel-culture

Look, I just reposted it because I thought she brought up some good points. Did the letter mention ending at-will employment? No. Lol the woman teaches full time and just won the Pulitzer

Like it was published on her blog.

So sure, some of these people might bring up points she would have them bring up.

That doesn't mean she's full of shit, and it certainly doesn't mean the letter signatories aren't full of shit. Because they definitely are.

the anne boyer piece was good and i'm glad you shared it here

seconded

Good stuff on the thread (and the thread within) on how liberals have lost it big in the UK.

associating around this point and thread a bit.... I think one of the ways in which 'liberalism' is kind of debased at the moment is the idea (which you see everywhere) that key liberal values include the assumption of good faith and consensus-oriented debate https://t.co/c7Hf5XUZQm

— Lafargue (@Lafargue) August 8, 2020