Great example of the oppression hierarchy in action:
No one would think it was a nothingburger or make excuses if a white Ugandan identified as African American to try to get a boost in a college application.
I started writing a reply days ago, but I don’t want to do this again. If you don’t think there’s value in living in a liberal society, and the current disastrous backlash hasn’t convinced you of the dangers of trying to compel acceptance rather than persuade, you certainly aren’t going to be persuaded by anything I say.
However, yesterday a guy I follow on Twitter wrote a nice defence of free speech as a cultural value, so I may as well link to that:
As a Jew of Moroccan descent, I thought about applying to college as African American, but didn’t, because I figured I’d get in trouble for it.
How fucking stupid was that!
I’m trouble with who?
Free speech is free speech. Including criticism and boycotts and even advocating for boycotts. You’re free to say it’s wrong to advocate for boycotts, and we’re free to say that it’s wrong to say that it’s wrong to advocate for boycotts.
I do see the value in living in a liberal society. I don’t see how exercising two liberal values (freedom of speech, and freedom of association) means I’m against living in a liberal society.
Anyway, in your last post you agreed that there are times when its okay to cancel someone, so you’re not actually taking a principled opposition to me, you just don’t like my choices for what’s over the line.
Don’t you have to write an essay about how you’ve overcome the disadvantages of your oppressed identity or something if you want it to count? Or is that just for the Ivies?
Also, he didn’t get in, so it didn’t actually help him.
That’s like saying if you think fentanyl shouldn’t be legal, you can’t oppose long sentences for marijuana possession. Here is part of what I wrote:
One principle is that if you are currently engaged in trying to change laws or norms, or recently changed the law without allowing for much public debate, people should be allowed to discuss and advocate against those changes without being cancelled and ostracized. This is a major purpose of free speech, and can prevent making costly mistakes that harm people.
And you shouldn’t try to censor the majority opinion, for practical reasons if nothing else.
The school. I (falsely, I guess) assumed that if I said I was African American on my application, but then showed up and was not in fact black, that I would suffer some kind of consequence, like losing my spot.
I think it’s probably closer to arguing that heroin should be illegal, but fentanyl legal, because you personally use fentanyl, and not heroin.
You go to a deli, and the guy behind the counter hands you a white power pamphlet.
Do you go somewhere else for a sandwich? Do you complain to the owner of the deli? Do you warn your friends against going there?
If you answered “yes” to any of those, explain how you’re also against “cancel culture.”
No, it’s like you decided we should ban alcohol, and when I say that’s a bad idea, you say my opposition isn’t principled because I don’t want to legalise heroin.
The general principle is that we should support free speech and free exchange of ideas. Cancel culture has negative effects on society - it isolates people, and stifles progress both scientific and social - so exceptions should be few and egregious. Instead, they are rapidly multiplying, and surveys show people are more and more afraid to discuss their beliefs.
This particular variety of cancel culture functions as a way to illegitimately win a debate by silencing opposition. It’s bad and harmful because the side with more social power (or more willingness to use it to hurt others) wins, rather than the side that is correct (and it hurts people in the process).
That just sounds like a dumb argument, not canceling.
Which variety? The deli white-power pamphlet example?
You could have owned the shit out of those lib eggheads though. LMAO too bad.
If you want this make sense to her I think you need to make it a BLM or pro diversity pamphlet, you know someone she definitely disagrees with.
Right, and again, the only disagreement between us is what counts as “egregious.” You think my ideas are illiberal because I include prejudice against trans and queer people as one of the “few and egregious” exceptions, and you don’t.
Warning for insulting @DemonTree, a little indirect, but still a straight up insult was checked. Don’t do this again.
What on Earth does that mean?
If you would have went through with it, you would have shown them (the lib eggheads) how flawed the idea you and DemonTree are making fun of is (i.e Intersectionality, Oppression Pyramid, DEI, etc and how it’s just woke nonsense)
…in what way?
In how you imagined they would punish you. And how you would turn the tables on them.