Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. The argument is one of degree within points two and three.

Apropos of which, here is a smart comment about the Harper's letter:

‘"The question is where do you draw the line..." I agree, which is why it is irksome that the open letter refuses, point-blank, to engage with the nuances of line-drawing. The crucial sentence is this one: "Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal." The "arguments around the particulars" of real-world cases are the whole ballgame. Breezily dismissing mere specificities is gutless sophistry, and I think less of each individual careless enough to sign on to this shoddy piece of argumentation. (I'll note Paul Starr and David Frum, in particular.)... The open letter lacks the courage and intellectual honesty to name a single specific example of this happening. Instead, it treats us to a rather slippery series of hints and allusions which may bring to mind certain recent cases, without committing the signers to saying "This, this specific event, taking into account the totality of facts, was wrong." (And then, of course, it has the gumption to dismiss the relevance of its own pseudo-examples.) The letter is a complaint that a line—which it doesn't even attempt to define—has been crossed, on occasions it flatly refuses to name. It is, in a word, rubbish…."

via Delong

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Apropos of which, here is a smart comment about the Harper's letter:

via Delong

I think Delong sucks. But I’ll put that aside for now.

On substance, the Harper’s Letter May seem to be rubbish. But that’s because it’s gutless. It’s a gelded way of saying the following:

“These new voices are kind of dumb. They howl. They’re very righteous, and sanctimonious — all about emoting, demanding empathy. They’re a departure from the rational, the dispassionate. They are not voices of the salon. They are not even eloquent voices of protest. The are the crowd. They confuse feelings with analysis, and defend their right to do so. They seem to think such error infuses their message with a special form of credibility. These are divergences from what characterizes serious rhetoric, serious debate, serious thinking.

To engage with these voices is to enter a playing field where disagreement is met with venomous hostility. A playing field where the other side of the argument desires to not only refute a point made, but damage the maker’s ability to make another.

These are not debaters as much as scorched earth activists. A form of ‘suicide bomber’ advocates.

They care at a level those of us who choose to discuss issues in a cafe manner do not. There’s a level of heat they bring which makes the conversations uncomfortable. At any moment, one can be accused of offense and then the debate steered away from the subject at hand and toward the subject of appropriate punishment.

They’ll call this ‘accountability,’ but it’s almost always a child-like anger bubbling out of frustration. They often don’t make their arguments well, or their arguments are flawed, and they explode when that’s pointed out to them.”

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Apropos of which, here is a smart comment about the Harper's letter:



via Delong

Good quote, but at this point its been said before and I think its time to move on to the cancel culture in Portland, for example.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Delong sucks. Which I’ll reiterate here. But I’ll put that aside for now.

On substance, the Harper’s Letter May seem to be rubbish. But that’s because it’s gutless. It’s a gelded way of saying the following:

“These new voices are kind of dumb. They howl. They’re very righteous, and sanctimonious — all about emoting, demanding empathy. They’re a departure from the rational, the dispassionate. They are not voices of the salon. They are not even eloquent voices of protest. The are crowd. They confuse feelings with analysis, and defend their right to do so. They seem to think such error infuses their message with a special form of credibility. These are departures from what characterizes serious rhetoric, serious debate, serious thinking.

To engage with these voices is to enter a playing field where disagreement is met with venomous hostility. A playing field where the other side of the argument desires to not only refute a point made, but damage the maker’s ability to make another.

These are not debaters as much a scorch earth activists. A form of ‘suicide bomber’ advocates.

They care at a level those of us who choose to discuss issues in a cafe manner do not. There’s a level if heat they bring which makes the conversations uncomfortable. At any moment, one can be accused of offense and then the debate steered away from the subject at hand and toward the subject of appropriate punishment.

They’ll call this ‘accountability,’ but it’s almost always a child-like anger bubbling out of frustration. They often don’t make their points well, and they explode when that’s pointed out to them.”

By new voices you mean the people criticizing the well-established Harpers' writers? Folks like DeLong?

You can see the irrelevance of much of the Harpers crowed by their inability to engage with what's going on in places like Portland. The American cultural elite represented there are too busy figuring out which network to contract with for their commentary to actually play a leading role in a movement for change, something even a stick-in-the-mud like John Adams (a very good writer) managed in his time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By new voices you mean the people criticizing the well-established Harpers' writers? Folks like DeLong?

You can see the irrelevance of much of the Harpers crowed by their inability to engage with what's going on in places like Portland. The American cultural elite represented there are too busy figuring out which network to contract with for their commentary to actually play a leading role in a movement for change, something even a stick-in-the-mud like John Adams (a very good writer) managed in his time.

No. I dislike DeLong, but it’s based on views and conclusions. DeLong is an able writer and a smart analyst. I say he sucks because I think he reaches a conclusion and then assembles support for it. That’s just my personal view. He’s got good company, residing in that category with kiwi fruit, Bon Iver, eggplant, David Brooks, white wine, and ranch dressing.

I was referring to the journalists and pundits and bloggers of the moment who have contributed to, enable, or engage in practices of cancel culture.

I’m referring to the overheated voices who think because their passion is so intense, their cause so urgent and compelling, no critique of it, and certainly no opposition to it may be engaged, but rather anything that “does not aid the movement” should be shunned, and anyone speaking such things be made a pariah.

ETA: I think the establishment voices who signed the Harper’s Letter will be quite vocal in disdain for what’s happening in Portland, if they’ve not been so already. But they’ll criticize it as illegal, unconstitutional. Their less circumspect colleagues who absorb “the new truth” will bleat incoherently about it, call Trump a new Hitler, and do something futile, like starting a petition to demand Fox fire Tucker Carlson for defending the use of minivans and anonymous federal agents.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Delong sucks.

Well, he didn't write it, so whatever. I found the comment on his site, and like to provide a cite out of some misplaced sense of intellectual honesty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On substance, the Harper’s Letter May seem to be rubbish. But that’s because it’s gutless. It’s a gelded way of saying the following:

“These new voices are kind of dumb. They howl. They’re very righteous, and sanctimonious — all about emoting, demanding empathy. They’re a departure from the rational, the dispassionate. They are not voices of the salon. They are not even eloquent voices of protest. The are the crowd. They confuse feelings with analysis, and defend their right to do so. They seem to think such error infuses their message with a special form of credibility. These are divergences from what characterizes serious rhetoric, serious debate, serious thinking.

To engage with these voices is to enter a playing field where disagreement is met with venomous hostility. A playing field where the other side of the argument desires to not only refute a point made, but damage the maker’s ability to make another.

These are not debaters as much as scorched earth activists. A form of ‘suicide bomber’ advocates.

They care at a level those of us who choose to discuss issues in a cafe manner do not. There’s a level of heat they bring which makes the conversations uncomfortable. At any moment, one can be accused of offense and then the debate steered away from the subject at hand and toward the subject of appropriate punishment.

They’ll call this ‘accountability,’ but it’s almost always a child-like anger bubbling out of frustration. They often don’t make their arguments well, or their arguments are flawed, and they explode when that’s pointed out to them.”

I'm not sure there's much point to the Harper's letter, but there's even less point to your imaginary rebuttals to unspecified voices in your head that may or may not be similar to anything that anyone is actually saying.

If there is someone out there saying things you disagree with, why not (quote and cite and) respond to them specifically? Maybe that would help you set aside your own feelings and move towards some kind of analysis.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Good quote, but at this point its been said before and I think its time to move on to the cancel culture in Portland, for example.

I posted about Portland, suggesting that maybe it's not quite as apocalyptic as everyone else seems to think, so let me expand on that. Three related things are happening with the DHS presence.

(1) You have federal authorities ignoring state and local authorities to pick their own (confrontational) policing strategy. Since the current administration likes to pursue its own maximalist policies and is not restrained by what anyone else thinks, there's really nothing to stop them other than the November election. Acting in an unrestrained manner has really become an end in itself for them. Given the usually limited nature of federal jurisdiction in policing, it would not matter so much, except that...

(2) DHS has ludicrously expanded its own jurisdiction to go after any protest in Portland instead of protecting federal buildings. This will not stand up in the courts if and when it gets tested, as if they try to prosecute anyone, which it doesn't appear the local U.S. Attorney is particularly interested in doing, as they must know, which is why...

(3) DHS doesn't seem to be arresting anyone because they want to keep the federal courts uninvolved for as long as possible, so they essentially are exploiting the lattitude that law enforcement generally has to detain people for a short time before letting them go. Other police do this all the time at political protests, and there doesn't really seem to be a good way to curb this. If they hold people too long, then they have a habeas problem, and the point is to own the street in the moment, not to put people away indefinitely. You don't usually see the feds doing this because of (1) and (2), but it doesn't seem any less problematic than when, say, NYPD does it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was referring to the journalists and pundits and bloggers of the moment who have contributed to, enable, or engage in practices of cancel culture.

I’m referring to the overheated voices who think because their passion is so intense, their cause so urgent and compelling, no critique of it, and certainly no opposition to it may be engaged, but rather anything that “does not aid the movement” should be shunned, and anyone speaking such things be made a pariah.

Wouldn't this be more interesting if you could name and quote, like, maybe one of these people who so get under your skin? I mean, given your dedication to salon culture and traditional debate and analysis at all, you could model a more traditional response to one of them, instead of dismissing them with rhetoric ("bleat") and failing to engage with what they're actually saying. Pot, kettle, black.

ETA: I think the establishment voices who signed the Harper’s Letter will be quite vocal in disdain for what’s happening in Portland, if they’ve not been so already. But they’ll criticize it as illegal, unconstitutional. Their less circumspect colleagues who absorb “the new truth” will bleat incoherently about it, call Trump a new Hitler, and do something futile, like starting a petition to demand Fox fire Tucker Carlson for defending the use of minivans and anonymous federal agents.

What's telling to me is that you have more enthusiasm for criticizing these less circumspect colleagues of the establishment voices than you do for saying anything about paramilitary federal officers disappearing protestors off the streets of Portland. One is a real, actual, ongoing threat to free speech -- a cancel culture, if you will, to make GGG's point so obvious that you can't miss it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure there's much point to the Harper's letter, but there's even less point to your imaginary rebuttals to unspecified voices in your head that may or may not be similar to anything that anyone is actually saying.

If there is someone out there saying things you disagree with, why not (quote and cite and) respond to them specifically? Maybe that would help you set aside your own feelings and move towards some kind of analysis.

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/tr...tion#caseslist

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/social...al-revolution/

https://reason.com/2019/12/31/cancel-culture-2019-year/

Shall I continue?

But you know it’s real. You know the signatories to that letter didn’t invent it. You know it’s pervasive, systemic in the same way racism or sexism is systemic. It’s all over the place, and turning our discourse into shit. It’s also teaching our naive kids that their feelings and their sense of urgency and righteousness are more important than logic and exchange of differing views.

You know all of this. You don’t like it. So you argue around it. Okay. You can do that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wouldn't this be more interesting if you could name and quote, like, maybe one of these people who so get under your skin? I mean, given your dedication to salon culture and traditional debate and analysis at all, you could model a more traditional response to one of them, instead of dismissing them with rhetoric ("bleat") and failing to engage with what they're actually saying. Pot, kettle, black.



What's telling to me is that you have more enthusiasm for criticizing these less circumspect colleagues of the establishment voices than you do for saying anything about paramilitary federal officers disappearing protestors off the streets of Portland. One is a real, actual, ongoing threat to free speech -- a cancel culture, if you will, to make GGG's point so obvious that you can't miss it.

What it’s telling you is what I wrote — that the Harper’s signatories are no doubt writing against what’s happening in Portland. The only difference is they’re doing so in a thoughtful fashion, which is more effective.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/tr...tion#caseslist

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/social...al-revolution/

https://reason.com/2019/12/31/cancel-culture-2019-year/

Shall I continue?

But you know it’s real. You know the signatories to that letter didn’t invent it. You know it’s pervasive, systemic in the same way racism or sexism is systemic. It’s all over the place, and turning our discourse into shit. It’s also teaching our naive kids that their feelings and their sense of urgency and righteousness are more important than logic and exchange of differing views.

You know all of this. You don’t like it. So you argue around it. Okay. You can do that.

You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that aren't people out there saying stupid things that one can disagree with. I'm saying, why don't you actually engage with what those people are saying? True to form, you have posted a bunch of links to other people complaining about "cancel culture," none of whom appear to engaging with actual people with whom they disagree. For example, your first link leads to a list of academics apparently under fire, the first for telling a Vietnamese to change her name, which sounded to him like an expletive. But who is criticizing him for what? (Presumably that's the person you disagree with, and you think it's ducky for the professor to have said what he said, but who knows?) The second link takes you to a Kevin Williamson piece in the New York Post, enough said. Earlier today I saw that the New York Post had used "surfboards" as a verb to describe what Mark Zuckerberg was up to off a beach in Hawaii, so I've read enough of the New York Post for the day. After the first two, I didn't click on your third link. Should I have?

When I said, "If there is someone out there saying things you disagree with, why not (quote and cite and) respond to them specifically?", what I meant is, instead of complaining about cancel culture in the abstract, and risk sounding like a parody of it, why don't you quote, cite, and respond to one of the people you disagree with. Can you see how linking to Kevin Williamson is not that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What it’s telling you is what I wrote — that the Harper’s signatories are no doubt writing against what’s happening in Portland.

"No doubt," eh? Which sentence in their letter suggests to you that they had Portland in mind?

The only difference is they’re doing so in a thoughtful fashion, which is more effective.

"A thoughtful fashion," huh? Are they pensively rubbing their chin to look good, or is it the complete failure to address the specific facts of any particular situation that leaves you thinking that?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I posted about Portland, suggesting that maybe it's not quite as apocalyptic as everyone else seems to think, so let me expand on that. Three related things are happening with the DHS presence.

(1) You have federal authorities ignoring state and local authorities to pick their own (confrontational) policing strategy. Since the current administration likes to pursue its own maximalist policies and is not restrained by what anyone else thinks, there's really nothing to stop them other than the November election. Acting in an unrestrained manner has really become an end in itself for them. Given the usually limited nature of federal jurisdiction in policing, it would not matter so much, except that...

(2) DHS has ludicrously expanded its own jurisdiction to go after any protest in Portland instead of protecting federal buildings. This will not stand up in the courts if and when it gets tested, as if they try to prosecute anyone, which it doesn't appear the local U.S. Attorney is particularly interested in doing, as they must know, which is why...

(3) DHS doesn't seem to be arresting anyone because they want to keep the federal courts uninvolved for as long as possible, so they essentially are exploiting the lattitude that law enforcement generally has to detain people for a short time before letting them go. Other police do this all the time at political protests, and there doesn't really seem to be a good way to curb this. If they hold people too long, then they have a habeas problem, and the point is to own the street in the moment, not to put people away indefinitely. You don't usually see the feds doing this because of (1) and (2), but it doesn't seem any less problematic than when, say, NYPD does it.

I generally agree it is not quite apocalyptic yet. We are not yet in Palmer Raids territory, but we are veering there fast.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that aren't people out there saying stupid things that one can disagree with. I'm saying, why don't you actually engage with what those people are saying?

Because that's impossible. In its most frequent form, an attempted "cancellation" involves a group of pundits, reporters, or bloggers piling on to a target at once. Shall I address each criticism? I don't have to. That's all free speech. They can say what they like. They can gang up as they like. They only offend in one regard, and that's when they ask that the speaker of whatever heresy has them exercised be made a pariah.

I needn't engage their critiques on substance at all, for there is never a credible or defensible basis for the following argument to be made against moderates, conservatives, or even fellow liberals who critique things like wokeness or #metoo:

Your opinion is so awful you should be made a pariah, publicly shamed to the extent that your voice will be considered deviant and inappropriate for the public space.

A person saying anything close to that is a person who should not be engaged. They should be ignored. They are a form of troll.

True to form, you have posted a bunch of links to other people complaining about "cancel culture," none of whom appear to engaging with actual people with whom they disagree. For example, your first link leads to a list of academics apparently under fire, the first for telling a Vietnamese to change her name, which sounded to him like an expletive. But who is criticizing him for what? (Presumably that's the person you disagree with, and you think it's ducky for the professor to have said what he said, but who knows?)

Like I said, it's systemic, like sexism and racism. If that hoists you on your own petard, that's your problem, not mine.

The second link takes you to a Kevin Williamson piece in the New York Post, enough said. Earlier today I saw that the New York Post had used "surfboards" as a verb to describe what Mark Zuckerberg was up to off a beach in Hawaii, so I've read enough of the New York Post for the day. After the first two, I didn't click on your third link. Should I have?

It speaks to broad trends in cancel culture. I don't know who Williamson is or anything about Zuckerberg and surfboards.

When I said, "If there is someone out there saying things you disagree with, why not (quote and cite and) respond to them specifically?", what I meant is, instead of complaining about cancel culture in the abstract, and risk sounding like a parody of it, why don't you quote, cite, and respond to one of the people you disagree with. Can you see how linking to Kevin Williamson is not that?

It's impossible to cite single instances of cancel culture. We don't have the bandwidth. It is systemic, a permanent feature of internet communication and social media. Never before has the crowd been so enabled. When it occurs, it almost always involves a few officious complainers posting something somewhere asking fellow travelers to pummel a target, often on Twitter, often in comment sections, and to demand the target's employer fire him or her, or his or her platform remove the person, or that advertisers punish the employer or platform for refusing to do so. In the university setting, it demands that a professor be fired or removed from teaching a class. In some cases, it involves demands that speakers be disinivited.

The argument you are making, which other defenders of cancel culture are making in other forums, seeks to burden the people complaining about cancel culture with an impossible task - to examine each instance uniquely. It's obviously a dishonest argument to the extent it taks an opponent with the impossible, but it needn't be disposed of on that basis. It also illuminates nothing, as examining any single instance does not shed light on the enormous number of others. It can be dismantled much more easily using the "systemic" paradigm. That which is systemic is not examined on a case by case basis. We do not need to look at each attempted or successful cancellation and decide if the cancelers actually intended to cancel the target or not, or if their complaints were valid. Intent does not matter. Outcome is all that matters. Right now, cancel culture is creating perverse outcomes. It's ruining our public discourse and empowering low minds, giving them voice where they should be ignored. And the cancel culture of the left, in its extreme intolerance and urgency, is helping to create and empower a much more dangerous reactive cancel culture of the right, which you see on the streets in Portland.