3 ms·

The problem with this reasoning is that Tipper Gore is not right wing.

Jtsummers 10y ago
I take the professor's viewpoint on right and left wing to be (a product of its times) more a contrast between paternalistic authoritarianism under claimed democratic ideals, and liberal (as in freedom, particular personal liberties) democracy. Beyond that, right and left have no meaning anymore so it's best to read statements regarding them in the context they were made. Thus why I switched the language to refer to authoritarianism and liberal democracy in my comment. Right and left, if they have any meaning, represent only a single dimension of a very complex space. Right can mean: fascism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarian, Republican (confused mix of various ideologies), religious authoritarianism (under an ostensible democracy or not), generally conservatism. Left can mean: libertarian, anarchist, socialist (various forms, including anarchism), communism, Democrat (confused mix of various ideologies), various green movements, etc. It's far better to break out what we're actually wanting to discuss. Tipper Gore's motion, from the professor's perspective, was a right wing motion. Even if she is not right wing in general. Warning labels on records was seen as part of a paternalistic authoritarian attitude, that it happened to be coming from a left wing person did not make it a left wing idea. It really appealed to more conservative individuals. It is bizarre, I agree with the professor, that modern college students might actually be in favor of such governmental mandates. It's not the warning label on records, or trigger warnings before a class, that are a problem. It's the mandate from on high. It's authoritarianism, it removes agency from individuals (producers and consumers), it's potentially anti-free speech (certain labels will, while being on good products or good lectures, turn many people away, so the material itself is avoided because the market is left barren of consumers). Whether intended or not, that last part is the really frightening part, to me. Once we mandate ratings and warnings, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for people to even discuss difficult or challenging topics. It breaks the first amendment without actually having to do anything, society will censor itself. Individual speech, the press, etc.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  Yes and that's the best way to censor someone... let them do it themselves. There's no one to blame. There's no law to repeal. There's no argument to have. In fact, if you can make the punishment big enough, people won't even try to argue it. So there's no way to correct the situation. It's brilliant. And scary.

I take the professor's viewpoint on right and left wing to be (a product of its times) more a contrast between paternalistic authoritarianism under claimed democratic ideals, and liberal (as in freedom, particular personal liberties) democracy. Beyond that, right and left have no meaning anymore so it's best to read statements regarding them in the context they were made. Thus why I switched the language to refer to authoritarianism and liberal democracy in my comment. Right and left, if they have any meaning, represent only a single dimension of a very complex space. Right can mean: fascism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarian, Republican (confused mix of various ideologies), religious authoritarianism (under an ostensible democracy or not), generally conservatism. Left can mean: libertarian, anarchist, socialist (various forms, including anarchism), communism, Democrat (confused mix of various ideologies), various green movements, etc. It's far better to break out what we're actually wanting to discuss. Tipper Gore's motion, from the professor's perspective, was a right wing motion. Even if she is not right wing in general. Warning labels on records was seen as part of a paternalistic authoritarian attitude, that it happened to be coming from a left wing person did not make it a left wing idea. It really appealed to more conservative individuals. It is bizarre, I agree with the professor, that modern college students might actually be in favor of such governmental mandates. It's not the warning label on records, or trigger warnings before a class, that are a problem. It's the mandate from on high. It's authoritarianism, it removes agency from individuals (producers and consumers), it's potentially anti-free speech (certain labels will, while being on good products or good lectures, turn many people away, so the material itself is avoided because the market is left barren of consumers). Whether intended or not, that last part is the really frightening part, to me. Once we mandate ratings and warnings, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for people to even discuss difficult or challenging topics. It breaks the first amendment without actually having to do anything, society will censor itself. Individual speech, the press, etc.

caseysoftware 10y ago
Yes and that's the best way to censor someone... let them do it themselves. There's no one to blame. There's no law to repeal. There's no argument to have. In fact, if you can make the punishment big enough, people won't even try to argue it. So there's no way to correct the situation. It's brilliant. And scary.