I think we’ve reached the ground level of diminishing rates of return of this conversation. This is where I get off. Feel free to angrily hit all the elevator buttons and harangue the next boarding passengers.
…are you cancelling me?
“inhospitable work environment” His ass was fired. Why can’t right-wing opinion writers be fired anymore? If you love Sullivan so much, why don’t you write him a bi-monthly “good guy” cheque.
I think we largely agree on this issue so I’m not sure there’s more left to explore about the consequences that Bennet suffered as a result. It did strike me as wasted opportunity to have focus shift away from the conversation about Cotton after 24 or so hours, and become about something I found to be far less consequential.
No. I’m practicing social distancing.
I’m disappointed to see so little support for free speech on the left. Social consequences can just as effective as legal ones when it comes to silencing people - and social attitudes can be changed, just like laws can. Ask the gay rights movement on both counts.
How can you be a progressive without allowing for change and growth? And how can that happen if you don’t allow ideas you disagree with to be expressed? Stifling free speech can only lead to a more conservative society, simply entrenching the current orthodoxy… or it’ll lead to a revolt and the rejection of good ideas as well as bad. Honestly, the second is starting to look more likely.
I have no interest in stifling speech. This includes criticism of speech, and even social consequences for speech. Newsflash: social consequences are speech. Would you prefer to stifle that form of speech?
It tells me that he found a wedge that was gaining traction among his powerful and influential peers, and could use his bully pulpit to help to shut down criticism of the views that he chooses to put into public.
Personally, I’ve had an enormous amount of dislike for Sullivan. I used to watch Bill Maher, and Sullivan was a very frequent guest. He always struck me as being very disingenuous in his arguments, and would use the fact that he was a gay conservative to accuse others of hypocrisy.
I think we should work to make society more tolerant of different opinions and ideas rather than retreating to our bubbles. I don’t want to shut people up, I want to change hearts and minds. That’s kind of the point of free speech.
Oh, so you aren’t saying that people should stop critizing the powerful and influential when they disagree with what they say.
Sounds like we are in agreement then. They get to use their platforms to spread their message, and we get to use our collective voice to give feedback about how we feel about what they say.
Any objections?
He’s always had a pretty high opinion of himself. Very arrogant. Though, I have noticed that he’s become more moderate over the years and have taken that as a sign that he’s not a typical close minded conservative hack. You may be right. I don’t have that sort of cynical view of Sullivan but it’s possible I haven’t paid close enough attention.
This is a bit of a straw man. There are varying degrees of “giving feedback about how we feel.”
On the one end, there is respectful disagreement - “I don’t agree with your views, and here’s why, why and why” - I don’t think anyone would object to it, regardless of political affiliation.
Then, in the middle, there is screeching and shouting vitriol, which I think we would agree is venomous.
Then, on the cancel extreme of the spectrum, there is trying to outright get someone fired or banned because one does not like their views.
You make it sound as if opposing the extremist spectrum (trying to cancel someone for their views) means “people shouldn’t have the right to voice their opposition to someone.” That is like someone saying, “If you oppose monster trucks, it means you oppose the right of people to drive cars at all.”
Why can’t I want someone fired because I don’t like their views? Now, if your point is to their employer, then I’ll agree that the employer should do some due diligence before firing people just on someone’s say so.
For instance, when I was a fast food manager, I had someone come in and demand that I fire an employee for breaking up with her daughter. I thought she was silly, and I didn’t acceded her request, but it never even crossed my mind to tell her that she was not welcome to say her piece.
Why do I have to write a 500 word essay to explain my disagreement in a respectful fashion? We are talking about someone with far more voice and influence than I, and likely more talent in writing as well. So, it is only a trap to ask me to humbly submit my petition to them to be acknowledged and accepted.
I think that the screeching and shouting is just what it sounds like when it is something that you disagree with. I’ve been on this board with an unpopular opinion, and had a dozen or so posters all clamoring at me. It felt like I was under attack, I could feel them screaming and screeching at me. But that’s all it was, was my perception. Should I have told them to stop canceling me?
You linked to a woman who was screaming about a Trump banner. Do you think that she goes home screaming everyday? That she walks her dog screaming every day? Well, you may just.
You saw 2 minutes of someone’s life. At a time when they were emotional and provoked. Is it their proudest moment? Probably not. Is it the moment for which they should be judged on all their political opinions? No.
But are you judging her political opinions, lumping her in with the screeching and vitriol, due to your 2 minutes of knowing her? Yes, yes you are.
I disagree entirely with your vehicular analogy. We don’t own monster trucks, we own little tiny scooters. If you think you see a monster truck coming, it is actually a collection of many many tiny scooters.
What they are asking is that we do not add our collective voices together. Apparently, you think it is fine if I criticize them in the privacy of my own home, but if I am to do so in a way that gets others to also criticize them, then I am a part of cancel culture.
What about “I don’t like that guy, and I’m not going to shop at that business/read that newspaper any more because of that guy who works there”? What about that plus “and I’m going to urge others to do the same”? Where do those fall in your spectrum?
That sounds to me to be exactly the speech that they (the powerful and influential) want to suppress.
We’re talking about the stifling of the free exchange of ideas. And the response from the likes of @iiandyiiii is to simply deny that it’s happening. A similar denial is presented in the article, which contends that the underlying model for the free exchange of ideas has not changed, claiming the spectrum has shifted but the same principles and valuoes apply:
It helps to think of this debate as taking place on a spectrum. Social justice advocates think the bands of acceptable opinion and arguments shouldn’t be narrowed, precisely, but rather pushed to the left — shifted to include formerly excluded voices from oppressed communities and to sideline voices that seek to continue their exclusion.
But this contention is at odds with the explicit tenets of Critical Theory, which is now the dominant and mainstream dogma on the intellectual left. It is quite explicitly in tension with Enlightenment values and traditional liberalism.
The majority on our board are an older generation of traditional liberals, and when I’ve brought this up before, people have simply denied this, supposing that advocates of Critical Theory are a fringe minority. That’s simply wrong. In academia, among young left wing intellectuals - at the NYT for example - Critical Theory, not traditional Enlightenment values and liberalism, is mainstream:
The very first item in the summary of “major themes” is Critique of Liberalism.
That’s because the left has abandoned classical liberalism and have become the new fascists. Using violence to enforce one true way of thought ought to be scary instead of a cause of celebration.
My understanding may be completely wrong, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on exactly.
I think the conversation is not about whether it’s reasonable to boycott Goya (national) or Taylor’s (local) because they support Trump, for example. I think the conversation is about whether all people who express ideas that we don’t agree with are subject to boycott/cancellation. And if so, is that good for us?
If they are using their power and influence to express their ideas, then yes, absolutely.
That is the only way that us powerless have to respond to the powerful.
Like I said, it takes a consensus of a large group to have any sort of effect. You can’t just idly decide to destroy Amazon because Bezos looked at you funny. You might want to, you might try, but you will fail. I’ve been asked to join in on boycotts for things that I didn’t think were something that I cared nearly enough about to take action, and so I didn’t take part.
It is up to every individual to decide how to respond to those with power and influence. If enough individuals decide to respond, then that collective action is a good thing, it absolutely is good for us.
I agree and I’m not arguing against anyone exercising that right.
This is about a strictly intellectual appeal not to dismiss all ideas you don’t like in the same manner.