Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A side point to all this discussion of free speech that I think is fascinating is how discussions of progressive scholarship are used to telecast class.
If one can talk about things like intersectionality and critical race theory and seem open to the concepts, he telecasts that he went to the sort of school where these things are taught. He also telecasts he works in a job where he makes enough money to be able to mentally engage these concepts.
It's a way to signal one is well read and a bit affluent. I've scored points by having read White Fragility last year. Little would anyone know I did it in reply to a thread here.
There's definitely a herd mentality at work here, and an abuse of language. You hear these new words adopted and used in pieces, or in conversations, and it reminds me a good bit of the corporate lingo people use to look smart, to create barriers to entry that make it seem like they're engaged in some complex thinking that's actually quite pedestrian.
I wonder how many people nodding along with DiAngelo and telling others to read that book are doing so because they're thinking to themselves, This is what people who are well thought of, who are considered enlightened and successful, think. Trump people would never treat these concepts seriously or run in circles where they're considered. Definitely a lot of peer pressure at work.
I think anthropology departments need to develop a curriculum in Herd Mentalities and Social Climbing. Then someone could write a book, Upper Middle Class White Insecurity.
|
What you say about intersectionality is also true about quantum physics and Austrian economics and Bayesian probability. All are sophisticated concepts that explain the world around us, and familiarity with them will suggest time spent in higher education which is generally seen as a net positive and a class signifier. But you have singled out intersectionality and looked past quantum physics and Austrian economics and Bayesian probability, probably because you are skeptical that it adds value to understanding our world, and by talking about insecurity you are implying that people who talk about intersectionality do not really believe it, but are talking about it to look good to other people. In the stories you tell, only people on the left are motivated by peer pressure.
Quote:
|
ETA: Another corollary point regarding this free speech debate is that cancel culture might only exist to protect bogus theories. That it may have stemmed from a need to protect that which crumbles in the face of skepticism. Trump lies all the time, so he needs to employ cancel tactics constantly. I think a lot of the "academics" behind some of the far out gender studies realize their work is more narrative than hard science, and don't want it subjected to the buzzsaw of the scientific method.
|
This is certainly true of complaints about "cancel culture," which rely on the idea that it is everywhere to get past the problem that if you look closely you often can't find it. Bennett got fired for not reading stuff he was editing. Bari Weiss left her job after her boss left. Rapaport got fired for a lot of discriminating against people, not an Instagram post. And so on. Some people would rather complain that their right to free speech is being suppressed than answer for what they've done and said.
