Identity, politics, and the in-fighting of the left

[k9bfriender]

@QuickSilver

He voted wrong.

I thought we had determined that it was far more than just “voting wrong”.

It is when things are simplified to the point of painting a very inaccurate picture that causes me to doubt the rest of the argument.

The Harper letter was the same way. All of the claims that I have seen fleshed out ended up being very different from how they were presented.

Even as reactionary as you were, would you have really boycotted over just how he voted? Would you have even boycotted just because he went to Trump’s meeting? Or, is the fact that he showed that he was not an honest person when he lied about it what made you judge his character in such a way that you no longer wished to support him with your patronage?

And, as I said, it is arguable as to whether it was what caused him to lose his business. The people who work for the company and are willing to go on record say it was not.

So, this is the second part of the criticism of cancel culture that I see over and over. The punishment. Something bad happened while they were being criticized, therefore it must be due to the criticism. They never did anything else that could have caused their misfortune, it was all because of people speaking out against them.

It is easy to say that he lost his business because he voted wrong. It takes far more work to unpack that, put it into context, and explain that that is a simplification that leaves out all relevant details, and only leaves you with a false impression that this this correlation is a causation.

I haven’t gone through all the claims in the Harper letter, but every one that has been examined in more than cursory detail has fallen apart.

@QuickSilver

I just think I’ll put more thought into making that decision.

So, would you say that your experience inoculated you against “cancel culture”?

If the message that “continue culture” wants to get out is that people should put some thought into the things that they oppose, then I am all in favor. Maybe people will also put thought into things that they support as well.

But, in these threads, I don’t think that any solutions have been offered by those who wish to cancel cancel culture, just admonishment at those who would raise their collective voices.

I encourage people to engage in critical thinking before they take any action, whether it be an individual boycotting or an employer disciplining an employee. That’s the only solution that has any chance of working that does not depend on serious undermining of the rights that we have enjoyed in this country.

[DemonTree]

@QuickSilver

I’m thinking that I rushed to join a boycott that I probably would not today. Which is not to say I would never join any boycott going forward. I just think I’ll put more thought into making that decision.

That’s fair. I’m certainly not saying no one should ever boycott anything, just that doing it too much has a chilling effect, and we seem to have reached that point in many areas.

[k9bfriender]

But a boycott is basically the most passive form of protest you can imagine.

I’m not going to eat/shop/get services there. That’s all it is. I only eat one or fewer lunches a day. I have to make some sort of decision as to where I will eat, and I don’t see why my feeling towards the politics of the owner shouldn’t factor into it.

When I was a young child, we were in a Hardee’s, and my sister fell out of her high chair. She banged her head and was bleeding. The employees refused to give us some ice.

We never ate at a Hardee’s again. I still haven’t been in a Hardee’s as an adult, and sometimes when someone suggested we eat at one, I demurred.

Is that sufficient reason to not give them my money?

[QuickSilver]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Interesting—my impression runs the other way, both on non-anonymous sites like facebook, and much more so on anonymous platforms. If anything, I would’ve thought that the ability to go online and self-select some appropriate peer group to agree with you fosters unfettered expression, as @DemonTree also proposed:

I’ve never participated on Facebook. My understanding is that it’s not uncommon to be either confronted or unfriended for expressing unpopular views. So I think to the extent that people want to maintain their network of friends, most will avoid being overly controversial. As to finding an on line community that aligns with your views, well, there is no risk in espousing controversial views in that community - it’s a ‘safe space’.

The challenge comes in communities like this message board or reddit. It’s anonymous, but it’s not hard to be ostracized for unpopular views. If you have an interest in remaining a welcome member, it would behoove you to be restrained in expressing views that you know would not be well received. I believe that criticism expressed under such anonymous circumstances is more harsh than it would be at a book club meeting, for example.

[ISiddiqui]

@QuickSilver

I’ve never participated on Facebook. My understanding is that it’s not uncommon to be either confronted or unfriended for expressing unpopular views. So I think to the extent that people want to maintain their network of friends, most will avoid being overly controversial.

So there is a common statement that goes “never read the comments”. Granted this applies to all forms of online media, but I feel it definitely attaches to Facebook comments. Sure, you can be unfriended, but people will say the most horrific things on articles shared by news sources on Facebook. Maybe those folks believe that since they did not share it on their own personal page it won’t come up for others? I don’t know, but Facebook comments on news articles can get really bad.

[QuickSilver]

Like many people, I am inclined to judge someone by their morality and politics. But I’ve never been someone to jump on a bandwagon. Mob mentality normally makes me very uneasy and I disdain joining under most circumstances. But I got caught up in this particular boycott action and in retrospect, in the context of this thread, I am re-examining my decision and whether I got caught up in something I had not fully considered.
Was the target of my action truly deserving of such punishment simply because he “voted wrong” and then lied about it? He sold a product I eagerly anticipated and enjoyed. Right up until the moment I learned something that had nothing to do with what he was selling. I think about this when I watch movies with Kevin Spacey or enjoy the comedy (and recently the series) featuring Louis CK. I can deplore their actions and continue to enjoy their talent. I didn’t do that with Taylors.

Which leads us back to the conversation about cancel/continue culture. It strikes me as something that is all too easy to get caught up in. People still watch movies produced by Harvey Weinstein - was there even a boycott? But many of the same people will never buy another Goya product.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@iiandyiiii

What if, for perhaps the first time in history, racists and bigots are worried that there could be very significant social consequences for discussing their views? Would that be worse than a world (say, the United States for most of its existence) in which such views were generally tolerated, if not welcomed?

Yes, that’s the ‘maybe that’s a good thing’ option I considered above. I don’t think it holds up: a view not uttered isn’t a view not present, and I’m not sure we want a society where people pay lip service to certain views that happen to be socially en vogue, while privately—and in perhaps self-selected ‘safe spaces’, online or elsewhere—holding to different views. Lasting change, I think, can only come from changing people’s hearts, not just their speech. In other words: people may have learned to hide, but that doesn’t mean that what’s hidden isn’t there, and there’s always a danger that these things come back out of hiding.

I’ve also pointed to some research that seems to back me up on this notion—an open culture of debate is important to a stable, tolerant democracy.

@k9bfriender

I don’t know that I agree with “good and bad” from the perspective of social activism. IMHO, ethics are what you do to bring about the world you want to live in.

If I understand you correctly, I think that’s too relativist a notion for me. I can’t accept the idea that a racist, in wanting to bring about a racially segregated society, is acting ethically, as they’re working to bring about the world they want to live in. Rather, I believe there’s real moral progress, and acting ethically is working to further that moral progress; but if the notion that a stable democracy needs open debate is right, then a culture where 40% don’t feel able to participate in open debate is an obstacle to moral progress, so the ethical action would be to work against that.

@k9bfriender

I don’t agree that simply holding divergent views leads to social stigmatization.

Well, that’s not what’s at issue, though: in the study, it was found that a sizable amount of people do feel that expressing divergent views leads to social stigmatization, and moreover, that the amount of people thinking so has been on the rise. So, there’s a possibility to work towards fewer people believing they’re not free to share their opinion.

Of course, this can be achieved in a bad way: if a large fraction of those not feeling free to speak is racist, then one way of getting them to feel it’s OK to speak out is to make racism OK again. That wouldn’t exactly be an example of moral progress. But, to me, it would be an unbearably pessimistic (thereby, however, not necessarily incorrect) view of human nature to think that our views are necessarily so bigoted that the options are either to live in an intolerant culture where bigoted views are uttered freely, or to live in a culture paying lip service to progressive views, while repressing expression of one’s true feelings.

I think it’s at least worth trying to establish a culture showing real moral progress, while nevertheless not stifling open debate. But on that front, we seem not to have done a great job in recent years.

[DemonTree]

Half_Man_Half_Wit, you might be interested in this when it comes out:

Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender,...

Have you heard that language is violence and that science is sexist? Have you read that certain people shouldn’t practice yoga or cook Chinese food? Or been told that being obese is healthy, that there is no such thing as biological sex, or that only white people can be racist? Are you confused by these ideas, and do you wonder how they have managed so quickly to challenge the very logic of Western society? In this probing and intrepid volume, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay document the evolution of the dogma that informs these ideas, from its coarse origins in French postmodernism to its refinement within activist academic fields. Today this dogma is recognizable as much by its effects, such as cancel culture and social-media dogpiles, as by its tenets, which are all too often embraced as axiomatic in mainstream media: knowledge is a social construct; science and reason are tools of oppression; all human interactions are sites of oppressive power play; and language is dangerous. As Pluckrose and Lindsay warn, the unchecked proliferation of these anti-Enlightenment beliefs present a threat not only to liberal democracy but also to modernity itself. While acknowledging the need to challenge the complacency of those who think a just society has been fully achieved, Pluckrose and Lindsay break down how this often-radical activist scholarship does far more harm than good, not least to those marginalized communities it claims to champion. They also detail its alarmingly inconsistent and illiberal ethics. Only through a proper understanding of the evolution of these ideas, they conclude, can those who value science, reason, and consistently liberal ethics successfully challenge this harmful and authoritarian orthodoxy–in the academy, in culture, and beyond.

Looks like there is a lot relevant to this discussion in there.

[QuickSilver]

@DemonTree

Today this dogma is recognizable as much by its effects, such as cancel culture and social-media dogpiles, as by its tenets, which are all too often embraced as axiomatic in mainstream media: knowledge is a social construct; science and reason are tools of oppression; all human interactions are sites of oppressive power play; and language is dangerous.

Okay, as we are discussing the facts & fictions/pros & cons, of cancel culture, I’ve no doubt there have been some fringe wingnuts who have made these statements. But are there any competent thinkers who take the above lunatics remotely seriously? Or is this a book that is desperately looking to fill some much needed space on the shelf.

[DemonTree]

It’s not been released yet, so no way to know. The blurb does read in a dumbed down way, which I would hope the book avoids. But I recognise these ideas - I’d say the latter two are more mainstream than the first two.

@iiandyiiii, do you agree language can hurt and harm people? Are microaggressions a widespread problem?

[iiandyiiii]

@DemonTree

@iiandyiiii, do you agree language can hurt and harm people?

That’s an incredibly broad question – but yes, of course language can hurt people (emotionally/psychologically). Words can be hurtful, as much as we might pretend we can’t be hurt by words. I’m not sure how this is relevant, though.

Are microaggressions a widespread problem?

In my understanding they’re very common, and folks should try to avoid doing them if one doesn’t want to cause little bits of suffering and obnoxiousness to those around them.

I’ve asked you a couple of questions in past posts that you’ve missed or ignored (like about the sandwich shop) – care to answer them?

[QuickSilver]

With all due respect, @k9bfriender, what you describe is the capriciousness of the boycott/cancel culture. I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s unlikely that another Hardee’s restaurant would deny you the ice or the level of empathy that is warranted in that situation. But you choose, due to entirely subjective reasoning, to never patronize any Hardee’s restaurants for years following. And although you fully support the LGBTQ community, you were entirely willing to momentarily put that aside for a chicken sandwich because McDonalds is simply to crappy and annoying.

My point isn’t to highlight hypocrisy. Surely we are all guilty of that in our lives and in no position to point fingers. My point, if it is indeed one worth making, is that while we often believe that our cause is right and just in punishing those whose political or moral views run counter to our own value system, it is equally true that we are not consistent in those actions, nor always just. Which is not to say some people/entities out there don’t deserve a good and honest cancelling. It’s just that there ought to be a check light that goes off to make sure it’s not a run-away cancel train for anyone who happens to express an unpopular thought.

[DemonTree]

D’you mean this question?

@iiandyiiii

But all he decided was to get a sandwich somewhere else. Are you saying that’s irresponsible? If there are two sandwich shops, and one has an owner who praises Trump (an admitted abuser of women and an obvious bigot) and another has an owner who criticized Trump, are you saying it’s irresponsible to choose the latter?

QuickSilver has already answered this pretty well. He didn’t just decide to get a sandwich elsewhere, he joined an organised boycott that contributed to driving a place he enjoyed out of business, and putting its employees out of a job. And no, I don’t think voting for the wrong candidate is enough to warrant this kind of action.

What I want is for people to take into account the importance of an open and free environment, where we aren’t afraid to express controversial opinions (no, that isn’t code for racism, it covers a huge range of ideas), when deciding whether to join a boycott or support someone being fired. Just disagreeing with what they say should not be enough.

[iiandyiiii]

@DemonTree

QuickSilver has already answered this pretty well. He didn’t just decide to get a sandwich elsewhere, he joined an organised boycott that contributed to driving a place he enjoyed out of business, and putting its employees out of a job.

That’s the same thing. The difference is in what others did, not what Quicksilver did. Are you saying that it’d be perfectly fine to choose the non-Trump sandwich shop, as long as lots of other people aren’t talking about doing the same? Or is it always wrong to choose the non-Trump sandwich shop?

What I want is for people to take into account the importance of an open and free environment, where we aren’t afraid to express controversial opinions (no, that isn’t code for racism, it covers a huge range of ideas), when deciding whether to join a boycott or support someone being fired. Just disagreeing with what they say should not be enough.

This sounds fine to me, and I don’t think it conflicts with anything I’ve said or advocated for.

[DemonTree]

Earlier you posted this in response to ContraPoints being driven off twitter.

@iiandyiiii

Twitter has made it easy for anonymous assholes to harass strangers. She wasn’t driven off social media because of criticism, but harassment. I don’t think you’ll find any of “my side” advocating for harassment. Harassment is wrong and platforms like Twitter should ban it.

It’s a lot harder to ignore hundreds of people harassing you when it’s accompanied by thousands of your supposed allies agreeing with the criticism. And don’t you think the instigators and critics deserve some of the responsibility for inspiring the harassers and making them feel justified? When right-wing politicians rant and then some crazy goes out and shoots people, we tend to think they bear some responsibility.

Earlier you said you are campaigning to grind the racists and misogynists into (metaphorical) dust. I actually find that pretty alarming. Who is a racist? Anyone who voted for Trump? That’s a hell of a lot of people to throw in the metaphorical meat grinder or the dustbin of history. Probably most of them have some unexamined bigoted views, but they’re not about the go out and join the KKK. What happened to trying to persuade others to agree, or even listening and learning from other people? Are we only supposed to listen to people who have the ‘right’ qualifications?

[QuickSilver]

@iiandyiiii

The difference is in what others did, not what Quicksilver did. Are you saying that it’d be perfectly fine to choose the non-Trump sandwich shop, as long as lots of other people aren’t talking about doing the same? Or is it always wrong to choose the non-Trump sandwich shop?

I think the larger point is, when others are choosing the non-Trump sandwich shop (or can of beans), it behooves everyone to really consider their decisions before joining the action. I will not say that the temptation to boycott the Trump supporting shop isn’t emotionally satisfying for me personally, because it still is. There is some small amount of satisfaction in being part of something as well. Trump and his values are deplorable, after all. Still, it may not be said that boycotting a shop that supports Trump is always right. Maybe even rarely right, if how the owner voted is the only criteria by which the decision to boycott is made.

[DemonTree]

@iiandyiiii

That’s the same thing. The difference is in what others did, not what Quicksilver did. Are you saying that it’d be perfectly fine to choose the non-Trump sandwich shop, as long as lots of other people aren’t talking about doing the same? Or is it always wrong to choose the non-Trump sandwich shop?

I think if it’s just you, it’s irrelevant. If it’s enough people to be relevant, it’s harmful for the aforementioned reasons.

Or what QuickSilver said.

[iiandyiiii]

@DemonTree

It’s a lot harder to ignore hundreds of people harassing you when it’s accompanied by thousands of your supposed allies agreeing with the criticism.

Harassment isn’t criticism. If people are just agreeing with the criticism, they’re not harassing anyone.

And don’t you think the instigators and critics deserve some of the responsibility for inspiring the harassers and making them feel justified?

You’ve lumped in “instigators” into here – who are they and what are they saying? That’s very different from being a critic. But no, I don’t think criticizing someone earns responsibility for harassing, unless that criticism has gone beyond mere criticism into advocacy for violence or threats or the like.

When right-wing politicians rant and then some crazy goes out and shoots people, we tend to think they bear some responsibility.

If they say bigoted and hateful things? Of course! If they’re merely criticizing some policy on policy grounds, then no.

Earlier you said you are campaigning to grind the racists and misogynists into (metaphorical) dust. I actually find that pretty alarming. Who is a racist? Anyone who voted for Trump? That’s a hell of a lot of people to throw in the metaphorical meat grinder or the dustbin of history. Probably most of them have some unexamined bigoted views, but they’re not about the go out and join the KKK. What happened to trying to persuade others to agree, or even listening and learning from other people? Are we only supposed to listen to people who have the ‘right’ qualifications?

Changing their minds is part of “grinding them” into that metaphorical dust. Most of them probably won’t change their minds, but some will – and once they change their minds, great! Wonderful! But another part of that grinding is to make hateful and bigoted views (like so many of Trump’s) anathema in polite society. It already is for so many things – advocacy for child molestation, advocacy for genocide or slavery, etc. I think it also should be for bragging about sexual abuse, casual misogyny, racist comments, and similar. Maybe we’ll disagree on some of the particulars.

All rhetorical strategies have their place. Some are convinced by gentle, persistent reasoning. Some are shocked out of complacency and reevaluate their positions with mockery or harsh criticism. Most probably won’t change their minds for anything, and their views need to be relegated to the dustbin.

[iiandyiiii]

@QuickSilver

I think the larger point is, when others are choosing the non-Trump sandwich shop (or can of beans), it behooves everyone to really consider their decisions before joining the action. I will not say that the temptation to boycott the Trump supporting shop isn’t emotionally satisfying for me personally, because it still is. There is some small amount of satisfaction in being part of something as well. Trump and his values are deplorable, after all. Still, it may not be said that boycotting a shop that supports Trump is always right. Maybe even rarely right, if how the owner voted is the only criteria by which the decision to boycott is made.

So if there are two shops, one with a Trump supporting boss and one without, I’m obligated to choose the Trump shop? Under what circumstances should I or shouldn’t I pick the non-Trump shop? 'Cause I’m inclined to pick the non-Trump one every time, and I can’t figure out why I should feel bad about it.

[iiandyiiii]

@DemonTree

I think if it’s just you, it’s irrelevant. If it’s enough people to be relevant, it’s harmful for the aforementioned reasons.

Or what QuickSilver said.

So I can pick the non-Trump shop, but if lots of other people are doing the same, then I’m obligated to pick the Trump shop?