The irony here is that in their zeal, the right tends to attack the individuals and institutions who are actually protecting children (and women, too, but that’s a different topic).
There is a reason why we demand that things like sex education and LGBT issues be taught in elementary school. Because teenage pregnancy is a public health crisis, and suicide among LGBT youth is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Furthermore, children need as much information as possible about sexual abuse in order to protect themselves.
People who are actually protecting children by defending these values are the ones who are villainized.
Well, if so-and-so is a racist, i don’t see a problem with pointing that out. Misstating someone else’s position is wrong, whether you are cancelling them or extolling them.
I really don’t think we need to encourage racists to argue their case.
This is what the left has been doing. This is exactly what started me questioning, and led to my eventual disillusionment when I realised how illiberal the left had truly become.
Compare the Unf*ck America tour that @Babale posted about: their plan was to follow TPUSA to college campuses, and offer an alternative view, using podcasters who could appeal to young people. Maybe debate Charlie Kirk and show why his ideas are wrong. That is how you fight bad ideas in a liberal way - and in the end you’ll convince more people than if you try to ban and stigmatise opposing ideas and push them into dark corners. You tried that, and now they’ve all come bursting out again. People who believe in those ideas and rejected your morality wholesale are running your country now.
Responsible? No. But I’m convinced they contributed, and influenced the people who are using Trump to push their preferred policies. A few years ago, I told you your strategy would lead to exactly the outcome you feared. Events since then have certainly not contradicted me.
Not really. That’s what the tour was about, and it fell apart due to nonsensical accusations of “extreme microaggressions” which reminds one of “jumbo shrimp”
That said, the story has a happy ending. The far leftist crowd, led by Dean and Parker, cut ties with Ground Game USA; as is typical for far leftists, they completely failed to organize anything coherent, so their promises of replacing Zee and carrying on fell apart; and Zee found some more Liberal people to carry on the tour. I think they’re starting it up again this weekend or something?
I tend to agree with this. Absolute positions on approaches to problem solving [I’m having a hard time coming up with the right set of words to describe what I’m thinking of] tend to be morally bankrupt. It’s the same kind of argument you hear from “originalists”. It doesn’t matter if the outcome is harmful, because it’s more important to follow a philosophy of “only doing what we think the people in the 1700s would have done”.
I do believe that it becomes ethically questionable to “cancel” individuals (ie, boycott a business because they employ someone who has said something you think is repugnant). I think the social consequences of repugnant behavior should not be lack of employment and possible homelessness (which seems like the intended, if unexamined outcome- making people unemployable). However, I have a right to do business or not with any business for whatever reason, so shrug. Maybe there is an amount of conformity and adherence to social norms that is required to participate in an economic system, and those who break those social norms experience consequences (how’s that for an unexpectedly conservative justification!?) At any rate, I think this happens extremely rarely, and is miles away from people whose popularity is part of their value to their employers (actors, etc) losing money or gigs based on their social capital. Which is also miles away from what the government was doing in the 40s and 50s.
Conservatism is genuinely awful. Conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major issue in my lifetime, which started in the McCarthy era; their every thought has been fatal in any number of ways. Conservatism not only killed 100 million people worldwide in my lifetime, but millions more at home, as last seen during the Covid debacle. Conservatism has kept hundreds of millions in the U.S. living in poverty and fear for decades, and those numbers are currently ready to explode. And some conservatives in the federal government today are known Russian assets. Anyone who has ever voted for a conservative should suffer guilt by association.
Everything I just said there is true, as true as your statement about communism, using exactly the same terms.
Your quarrel appears to be about the best way to fight those truths. That’s a legitimate argument, one that has few good answers and many bad ones. The worst possible answer is to involve the government, either to officially harass those of opposite opinions or to officially jam those opinions down the throats of those who disagree.
Like “fascism” or “woke,” words intended as pejoratives are tossed around so loosely as to be stripped of all meaning. “Censorship” is one of those words. Only the government can censor people. Despite your claim above, social media can only cancel or deplatform or block people. Nothing about this is good; it’s all too reminiscent of blockbusting, redlining, and covenants used to keep black buyers from getting homes in certain areas, legal at the time but heinous.
In the past, government actions, such as the prohibition against restrictive covenants, worked to reinforce the change in public opinion against the haters. Not censorship but forceful laws and actions that promote true freedoms. Our experiences in the 60s led my generation to believe in unfettered speech by the masses to generate those positive laws. The internet was predicated on that principle. The founders all learned just how wrong that could turn out and now pretend to be helpless. They’re not, and they could do something as soon as they realize how threatening to their fortunes this era is. A change is gonna come.
As has been noted multiple times in this thread, this is irrefutably false. Censorship is any attempt to silence speech due to it being perceived as being offensive in some way. None of my dictionary’s definitions of the word “censor” include the word “government”, though one does include the word “official”.
As a loud-mouthed descriptivist I’m normally on the side of those who point out that modern usages of words are determinative. Occasionally, however, I’ll balk when I think that the use actively prevents understanding. As it’s doing throughout this thread.
If you oppose trying to stop people hearing ideas you think are bad and harmful by calling for individuals to be fired and deplatformed, groups to be denied a place to meet, speakers to be shouted down, etc etc, and instead support fighting bad ideas with argument and evidence, I’ll be genuinely happy. Do you?
Yeah, I don’t think the aim of the tour was controversial, and I didn’t say anything about why it was cancelled (and it has indeed been restarted with new, and hopefully more reasonable, social media personalities).
The issue is not descriptivism vs prescriptivism; dictionaries agree with the common usage. The distinction you want to make just doesn’t exist. Surely you’d agree that, for example, a church can censor ideas in societies where it is powerful?
These questions are so incredibly broad and vague as to be meaningless. Occasionally killing people is morally acceptable. That doesn’t make me an advocate for murder. If you have an issue with anything I’ve said, be specific.
