Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Yes everyone I disagree with is a nazi. I don’t see any other conclusion can be drawn.

He and Victoria were neighbors, chums, and he won every honor the Empire could bestow, despite being by general consent the stupidest “major” poet in the canon.

tennyson had some good lines. but "i am a part of all that i have met" takes on a chilling dimension when juxtaposed with his seeming indifference to the irish famine, which i guess he witnessed firsthand...

it's a lot harder to forgive artists for being complicit in state crimes -- cowards or else worse, indifferent -- than it is to forgive them for other kinds of transgressions, like byron sleeping with his sister or whatever. which is interesting to think about, because when it comes to our contemporaries, it's the opposite.

I liked this Dolan/Brecher blog post about the targets "cancel culture" tends to miss, as primarily explained/demonstrated via Victorian-era literature.

― unpaid intern at the darvo institute (Simon H.)

dolan/brecher are no doubt extremely intelligent but it seems very.... rhetorical. i just don't understand who they're Explaining all these things to and why. the issue is a lack of precision on the modern-day front - they are certainly capable of being extremely precise and clear when it comes to supporting the historical fact that the potato famine was a political act that was discreetly supported by nearly the entirety of the upper classes of british society. what i'm having trouble with is how any of this relates to contemporary events, where they seem content to just throw around words like "cancel culture" without much at all in the way of concrete referents.

i think they're just saying that having an intelligentsia obsessed with personal morality doesn't mean the culture itself is especially moral. which is a solid point -- we all agree that was true of the american right wing in the 90s and 00s, when they were hopped up on self-righteous christian moralism. so maybe the left wing's moral turn -- their move away, from like, a more laissez faire approach to language and expression -- should be taken with some skepticism.

just skimmed it though. they definitely do not "prove" cancel culture is hypocritical or anything.

nor is that the angle he's interested in taking

And all views that are deemed suspect must be deplatformed. Totally cool.

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes)

ftr I am totally cool with this, esp. since "deplatformed" basically means "loses money/prestige/a job" and not "gets murdered by cops who then get promoted"

once the punching up becomes in any way comparable to the punching down, wake me up. until then, shut the fuck up with your liberal whining.

Is this in regard to Adolph Reed, Alex Morse, or who?

I don't really understand what antideplatforming as a stance even means, does it mean if I run an organization I don't choose who to invite, I just have open-mike night and whoever shows up...?

people talk (or don't talk) about "platforming" like it's some natural state of affairs instead of an actual choice made by actual people advancing actual interests

hm

an actual materialist analysis of the issue would be p useful, like what has made student-age ppl of the left so suspicious of and exhausted by the dismissive commentary of well heeled pundits and tenured scholars, also of the left, but born between, like, 1945 and 1970?

reed might actually be pretty good on this, it's his beat

also lol that adolph reed snr called him adolph in 1947, v strong trolling

Are you saying that horseshoe theory is real?

an actual materialist analysis of the issue would be p useful

this is why The Letter should have published everyone's age and salary next to their names, would have saved everyone a lot of time

look clearly adolph with a "ph" is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from adolf with an f and anybody who would _ever_ associate the two is just not being _logical_

this is why The Letter should have published everyone's age and salary next to their names, would have saved everyone a lot of time

― unpaid intern at the darvo institute (Simon H.)

if we're going all occam's razor on this not publishing The Letter at all might have been even easier

harsh but fair

https://youtu.be/HIWY8UyW9bw

lol they're very bad at faking the performance

amazing song though

lol they're very bad at faking the performance

― treeship

ridiculous, i have never seen alex chilton giving less than his all

anyway a great song obviously but i am still fond of this one

https://youtu.be/veB0UkFuRls

The Dolan/Brecher piece seems to be making a point that quiet complicity with state violence is insidious, and that it arguably has more lasting effects than the hucksters selling fascist snake oil during a rightward swing in consciousness. In relation to cancel culture, it seems to be making the argument that simply calling out those who openly proclaim fascist tendencies, for example, is not enough, particularly since the machinations behind those tendencies tend to run deep.

I tend to be a both/and sort of person in this regard— why not de-platform people AND try to get at the underlying structures that form their shitty views?

This is unclear though, who is it we are de-platforming? Fascists? right wing people in general? Reed? Sunkara/Jacobin?

Leftists treating Leftists with somewhat different ideas as dangerous people who need to be shut down is like some stuff that’s never happened before in history And will probably work out fine

table, I think Dolan would agree w u

anvil, in my above post, i'm referring specifically to fascists and right-wingers, genocidaires, etc.

In general, I don't think that a disagreement over politics that leads to someone like Reed deciding not to give a speech is dangerous or deplatforming at all. I think it's a disagreement over politics, one with many nuances, and one on which both sides have a good argument. There has always been factionalism, particularly in socialist circles, and in the case of Reed, I don't totally get the hand-wringing. People don't have a "right" to give speeches to groups that don't want to hear their speeches!

Like, when I lived in an anarchist cooperative housing situation, did we have socialists come speak at events? No. Tankies? No. We didn't prevent people sympathetic to those tendencies from coming to anarchist-led talks or events unless we thought it was going to cause safety concerns, but as many other people have said previously in this thread and elsewhere, many of the people making a tempest out of such "de-platforming" cases hold immense amounts of power and feel they have a right to be listened to and not questioned by rapt audiences who agree with them totally. They're elitists, plain and simple, who utilize the cudgel of free speech to maintain their positions.

One of the big mistakes that people make, too, is that they think that just because the DSA Brooklyn chapter disinvited Reed that they won't march and struggle alongside people who disagree with them slightly, which is absurd, as the immensity of crowds at protests this summer have shown.

People don't have a "right" to give speeches to groups that don't want to hear their speeches!

But if you call it "deplatforming" it sounds so much more sinister than that! By coining a neologism it removes any prior context and allows the speaker to impose whatever new context they desire.

About the Reed incident: A lot of leftist writing about the New Deal misses how its legislation and execution kept black citizens from its most transformative elements. That's all I say.

There is a difference in not inviting someone to start with and rescinding an invitation after uproar (or creating a hostile environment, as with Reed’s talk).

Now that you've identified a difference between these two actions, how do you think they differ in their effects?

The latter certainly creates a more obvious break in camaraderie.

A lot of leftist writing about the New Deal misses how its legislation and execution kept black citizens from its most transformative elements.

This is fine, but ]which leftist writing? We keep running into the same issues here of vagueness, we never really know who or what.

'a lot of writing', paraphrasing of statement from "someone I know", which then comes to stand in as a shorthand for all. I can't think this is the intention, but it doesn't help with clarity. I can never tell who is being discussed or what they said because its too often inferred and implied

The Dolan/Brecher piece seems to be making a point that quiet complicity with state violence is insidious, and that it arguably has more lasting effects than the hucksters selling fascist snake oil during a rightward swing in consciousness.

― healthy cocaine off perfect butts (the table is the table)

ah, see, i do think this is a super interesting point. i agree! cultures of complicity are insidious. honestly, it's something i struggle with a lot - i was raised to respect the rule of law, to respect authority. i was taught well the dangers of non-compliance. i mean, christ, it's my literal job. i work in compliance. my job is to make sure that regulations are obeyed. i don't know how i am supposed to obey any of the crazy shit the president says. i don't know how any of us are supposed to do it.

and this i think is one of the reasons i am, right now, afraid of liberals in a way i am _not_ afraid of donald trump. i just have a hard time describing the president, himself, as "insidious". to me this implies some sort of gentle persuasion, of gaining your trust and persuading you to "compromise" on things you normally wouldn't. insidiousness relies on gradualism, which is just not something the president seems _capable_ of.

biden/harris are peak insidious imo.

People don't have a "right" to give speeches to groups that don't want to hear their speeches!

I get this, but what about people that wanted to hear something that was booked, and was no longer booked because some other people didn't want to hear it. Why can't they just not go?

I think they’ll live

Can't argue with that:) I'm not that sure anyone wants to hear from anyone anyway!

Welt: can you imagine how awful it would have been if we’d had cancel culture after the war and former SS officers hadn’t been able to teach children?

apparently not a german onion style parody. I don’t know how cancel culture discourse is ever going to top this

Welt-Chefkommentator (!) schreibt einen bizarren Artikel darüber wie gut es war, dass Nazis noch 45 nicht der bösen Cancel Culture zum Opfer fielen. U.a. sein Heimleiter Kraas, SS-Brigadeführer, Generalmajor der SS u. letzter Kommandeur der 12. SS-Panzer-Division „Hitlerjugend“ https://t.co/zY7xmViMLX

— Annika Brockschmidt (@ardenthistorian) August 16, 2020

From what I can tell, it seems like DSA leadership didn't consult with members, and many members were like, "This is bogus, we don't want this class reductionist jabbering to us." So, they made their concerns known, and Reed decided not to do the speech. The reason it matters is that if the DSA is going to ever be viewed as anything besides a stomping ground for white, well-educated leftist 18-40 year olds, then it needs to stop booking class reductionists like Reed.

For an insight into the DSA's race issues, look no further than this article from TNR. The person I was speaking of above, btw, is quoted in the article, if you want to sleuth. https://newrepublic.com/article/152789/americas-socialists-race-problem

Again, I'm not saying I'm in agreement with this approach, but from what I can tell, these are the terms that are being used in this particular argument.

ah, see, i do think this is a super interesting point. i agree! cultures of complicity are insidious. honestly, it's something i struggle with a lot - i was raised to respect the rule of law, to respect authority. i was taught well the dangers of non-compliance. i mean, christ, it's my literal job. i work in compliance. my job is to make sure that regulations are obeyed. i don't know how i am supposed to obey any of the crazy shit the president says. i don't know how any of us are supposed to do it.

and this i think is one of the reasons i am, right now, afraid of liberals in a way i am _not_ afraid of donald trump. i just have a hard time describing the president, himself, as "insidious". to me this implies some sort of gentle persuasion, of gaining your trust and persuading you to "compromise" on things you normally wouldn't. insidiousness relies on gradualism, which is just not something the president seems _capable_ of.

biden/harris are peak insidious imo.

― Kate (rushomancy), Sunday, August 16, 2020 1:03 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

There is no way out of complicity, imho, except acknowledging the extent of it and working to make a more equitable world. Capitalism, by its nature, makes us all complicit in any number of structures that are objectively abhorrent.

Agreed on the Biden/Harris thing. That so many actually do believe in them as a force for good just exhibits the self-centered rot at the core of liberalism.

For an insight into the DSA's race issues, look no further than this article from TNR. The person I was speaking of above, btw, is quoted in the article, if you want to sleuth. https://newrepublic.com/article/152789/americas-socialists-race-problem

Thanks for this, its a long article but I'll get to it later in the week. Hopefully it sheds a bit more light on the Reed/Sunkara stuff and I can try wrap my head around it!

East Bay and Philly DSA has some weird things going on, to the point where East Bay(iirc) took up some weird delegate credentializing issue on the very first day of the Convention last summer that had a lot of us scratching our heads as to wtf was going on and why they decided to air their dirty laundry right there.

Reed himself on the subject of class reductionism:

Class reductionism is the supposed view that inequalities apparently attributable to race, gender, or other categories of group identification are either secondary in importance or reducible to generic economic inequality. It thus follows, according to those who hurl the charge, that specifically anti-racist, feminist, or LGBTQ concerns, for example, should be dissolved within demands for economic redistribution.

I know of no one who embraces that position. Like other broad-brush charges that self-styled liberal pragmatists levy against “wish-list economics” and the assault on private health insurance, the class reductionist canard is a bid to shut down debate. Once you summon it, you may safely dismiss your opponents as wild-eyed fomenters of discord without addressing the substance of their disagreements with you on policy proposals.

Although there are no doubt random, dogmatic class reductionists out there, the simple fact is that no serious tendency on the left contends that racial or gender injustices or those affecting LGBTQ people, immigrants, or other groups as such do not exist, are inconsequential, or otherwise should be downplayed or ignored. Nor do any reputable voices on the left seriously argue that racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia are not attitudes and ideologies that persist and cause harm.

Class reductionism” is, in other words, a myth. It is a caricature rooted in hoary folk imagery, likely as not originating in tales of late-1960s debates during the raucous disintegration of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), as a clutch of nominal socialists insisted that any distinct focus on racial and gender injustice would undermine the greater political goal of working-class unity. But even at its height, this view only gained currency among a very small cohort of sectarian dogmatists. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Communists, Socialists, labor-leftists, and Marxists of all stripes characteristically were in the forefront of struggles for racial and gender justice. And that commitment was natural, because such leftists saw those struggles as inextricable from the more general goal of social transformation along egalitarian lines; they properly understood the battles for racial and gender equity as constitutive elements of the struggle for working-class power. Class reductive leftism is a figment of the political imagination roused by those who have made their peace with neoliberalism.

The myth, moreover, obscures important contemporary and historical realities.

Black, female, and trans people tend to be disproportionately working class. So any measure to advance broad downward economic redistribution—from Medicare for All to a $15 hourly minimum wage—can’t coherently be said to thwart the interests of women, racial minorities, or other identity groups. What’s more, this brand of class denialism artificially separates race, gender, and other ascriptive identities from the basic dynamics of American capitalism. True, African Americans, Latinos, and women are disproportionately poor or working class due to a long history of racial and gender discrimination in labor and housing markets—conditions that have worsened alongside the postwar deindustrialization of American cities. But this means that these populations would benefit disproportionately from initiatives geared to improve the circumstances of poor and working-class people in general.

Sorry for post right wing writing here

Philly DSA supported a councilwoman in a 2019 primary who a) didn't actually live in the district any longer, b) was a legacy from her husband's time as councilman in the district, c) had aides who threatened at various points to murder and 'rape the dyke' out of queer constituents who opposed her. Why did they do so? They said it was because her opponent was taking money from developers and gentrifiers...while their campaign took money from those same organizations.

Both candidates were black women. The incumbent lost her primary, but let me tell you, having DSA dudes tell me that homophobic attacks don't matter because the candidate was on the side of the working people was enough to make me write off the DSA forever.

Re: that bit from Reed, the issue is that his position wants to deny the very circumstances his second to last sentence identifies, and he makes that obvious!

But the reality is that being an immigrant, being trans, and being Black or brown or Indigenous in the US adds a layer of oppression beyond simple classism. People with such identities are kept in the bottom of class hierarchies for a reason, and one of those reasons is their identities. If Reed truly thinks that rising tide lifts all boats, then why is he so dismissive toward intersectional arguments regarding class solidarity?

Like, I just find that bit from Reed totally contradictory.